IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

[INAYAT BAGBAN S/O. IMAMSAHEB BAGBAN

VS.

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND

OTHERS]

10.12.2025

(VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)

CORAM: ADDL. REGISTRAR JUDICIAL

ORAL ORDER

Case is called out.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner is present and prays

time to comply office objections.

As per Order dated : 27.11.2025, this case is listed on this day

for dismissal for non-compliance of the office objections.

On perusal of the records, it is seen that, this case was first

listed for compliance of office objections on 05.12.2018. But, inspite of giving sufficient opportunity and inspite of specific Order of the Hon’ble Court on 08.01.2019 that, if the office objections are not complied within three weeks the petition would be dismissed without

reference to the Bench.

Thereafter on 29.06.2020, the Petitioner has filed IA

No.1/2020 U/s 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the IA No.2/2020. The Petitioner has filed IA No. 2/2020 U/s 151 of

CPC to recall the Order dated: 08.01.2019.

The two applications were posted before the Hon’ble Court and

the Hon’ble Court has specifically observed that, the Petitioner does not appear to be interested in prosecuting the matter but, in interest of Justice two weeks time was granted finally to comply the office objections subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,500/-, failing which

the appropriate Orders would be passed on the above two applications.

But, even thereafter inspite of giving sufficient opportunity and inspite of specific orders on 17.10.2025 and 27.11.2025 that, if the office objections are not complied, the matter would be listed for dismissal, the office objections are not complied.

The conduct of the Petitioner shows that, the Petitioner is not interested in proceeding with the matter. Therefore, there are no grounds to grant further time to comply the office objections. Hence, the prayer of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is rejected. As per Chapter-XII, Rule 14(2) of Karnataka High Court Rules, the Registrar has the power to pass a peremptory order of dismissal, if the compliance is not made within the time extended.

As per Chapter-XII, Rule 14(3) of Karnataka High Court Rules, the party is entitled to apply for setting aside the peremptory order by making an application to the Court having assignment of the subject.

Hence, the following Order is passed by exercising the powers as per Chapter-XII, Rule 14(2) of Karnataka High Court Rules.

ORDER

The Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India stands dismissed for non-compliance of the office objections, with no order as to costs as per order dated:

08.01.2019 of the Hon’ble Court.

The IA No.1/2020 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and IA No. 2/2020 U/s 151 of CPC are also dismissed for non-

compliance of office objections.

The Petitioner is entitled to apply for setting aside of the Order of dismissal of IA No.1/2020 and IA No.2/2020 by making an application to the Court having assignment of the subject as per Chapter-XII, Rule 14(3) of Karnataka High Court Rules, 1959.

Sd/-

(JERALD RUDOLPH MENDONCA)

ADDL. REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL) & NOMIATED REGISTRAR List No.: 56 Sl No.: 41