Karnataka High Court
Sri. Abdul Khadar v. Smt. Jameela
2026:KHC:31918 · WP/11793/2026
- Decision date
- 2026-06-25
- Text availability
- Full text
- Judges
- E. S. Indiresh
Source: Indian High Court Judgments, AWS Open Data (CC BY 4.0) ↗
Connected provisions and cases
No further provision or case links are recorded.
Judgment text
- 1 - NC: 2026:KHC:31918 WP No. 11793 of 2026 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 11793 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. ABDUL KHADAR S/O LATE SRI.A.H.ABOOBAKAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A JANNAPPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SAKALESHPURA TALUK-573 127 HASSAN DISTRICT. PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHETHAN B.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. JAMEELA W/O IBRAHIM S.A, Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, CHAYA S A Location: HIGH R/A YADGAR MAHAL, COURT OF MAHESWARI NAGAR LAYOUT KARNATAKA SAKALESHPURA TOWN, SAKALESPURA 573 201. 2. SMT. SARAMMA, W/O LATE SRI.A.H.ABOOBAKAR, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/A, JANNAPPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SAKALESHPURA TALUK-573 127. - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:31918 WP No. 11793 of 2026 HC-KAR 3. SMT.KAMARUNNISA, W/O MOHAMMAD ALI.T.K, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.1007, FALNEER, STARKE ROAD, MANGALORE - 575 002. 4. THE TAHSHILDAR, ALUR TALUK- 573 213, HASSAN DISTRICT. 5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SAKALESHPURA SUB-DIVISION, SAKALESHPURA - 573134 HASSAN DISTRICT. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANGAMESH R B.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. BP. RADHA., AGA FOR R4 AND R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2026 IN RA 385/2025-26 PASSED BY THE R5 HEREIN AS PER ANNX-A AND ETC,. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:31918 WP No. 11793 of 2026 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that respondent No.5 has passed the final order on 23.04.2026. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that, the prayer made in the writ petition has become infructuous. However, liberty is reserved to the parties to challenge the order passed by respondent No.5, if so advised. 2. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE PNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22