Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Nirmala, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, seeking to quash an endorsement/order dated 12.10.2011 issued by the second respondent, the Deputy Secretary No.4 of the Bengaluru Development Authority. The respondents included the Bengaluru Development Authority and S. Sundresh. The matter came up for hearing on 2nd June 2017. On that day, none appeared for the petitioner even though the matter was called on two occasions. The court noted that the petitioner was also absent on the previous day, 1st June 2017, when the matter was adjourned. The court concluded that the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the petition and accordingly dismissed it for non-prosecution. No legal issues were argued or decided on merits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Dismissal for Non-Prosecution - Absence of Petitioner - The petitioner was absent on two hearing dates despite the matter being called. The court held that the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the petition and dismissed it for non-prosecution. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the petitioner's absence.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Law Points
- Dismissal for non-prosecution
- lack of interest
- absence of petitioner
Case Details
2017 LawText (KAR) (06) 20
Writ Petition No.4398 of 2012 (BDA)
For Petitioner: Sri M.G. Veerabhadraiah (absent); For Respondents: Sri M.N. Ramanjenaya Gowda (R1 & R2), Sri Reuben Jacob (R3)
Bengaluru Development Authority, The Deputy Secretary No.4 of Bengaluru Development Authority, S. Sundresh
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an endorsement/order of the Bengaluru Development Authority.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the endorsement/order dated 12.10.2011 issued by the second respondent.
Filing Reason
Petitioner challenged an endorsement/order of the Bengaluru Development Authority.
Issues
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the petitioner's absence.
Submissions/Arguments
No arguments were presented as the petitioner and her counsel were absent.
Ratio Decidendi
A petition may be dismissed for non-prosecution if the petitioner fails to appear and shows no interest in prosecuting the matter.
Judgment Excerpts
None appears for the petitioner even though the matter was called on two occasions.
It is apparent that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute this petition. Hence, petition is dismissed.
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed in 2012. On 1st June 2017, the petitioner was absent and the matter was adjourned. On 2nd June 2017, the petitioner and her counsel were again absent, leading to dismissal.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
