The State Through Deputy … vs Manoharji on 9 September, 2008

V. ' fiflfi
§'*éa%."E%Ef{fi Nwfiwfi QWUW" 3?' %A%%Nfi£"3'%.%& WWIM fifiififi"? W? §m%W%%fiz.'!'&%@. MGM fifléiwi" @F mmmmm Mgfifl

 No; 

%aww&WmWm&wwmm&%fi®%m@u$?@F%%@

IN THE HIGH coma? OF Kakmkfiaxfi- , =

CIRCUIT Egmcé AT GflL§%§G§  :*~'"'

éggsgwf."

THE HON'BLE MR. afisfilcg K L MANQQNRTH

'rANa"

THE HON'SLE Mgf~JusT§cB=3v§wyAD: G.RAMESH

BATES ?3:s THg é%aa§'é§;$:?TEMBER 2008

BETWEEN::
1. The 3taféEthfQugh7_
Beputy Ccmmi3siogep,,

Gulbagga

W. The $upér§fiténd€nt of
§@liCe, Gulbarga.

, TheaExéc§tive Engineer,

.9,w;Q;; ?A@GzR:,
'yUistriéfi.@ulbarga

fléfiy §:iD: Subhash Mallapur,Adv

'ffifibr.

, ȴMcgohax3:,
S/JG Bhugcgi,
"<_Age: Majar,
«' Occ: P.W.D. Contreactor

R/0 Mudhol,
Sedam Taiuk,
Galbarga Sistrict

4f= V§}FfA:NQLé2ik2éO3

-)

mRespondents.

‘” “”‘””‘°”W””‘ “W *’W*’°*WWMW”% WWW mwwfifiwvr ammwmmmm mmm eemm we wmemmrem §~§&@'”~”ta§%~M'”£”?
‘ ‘ . ‘ 5-mmm-mm -‘3-game. am”;

Thezefere, he xequests the Cburthjfi3.¢iemiee_ehe

appeal.

§. Having heard the ceufisei_fer the partéee,

we are of the epin:Qe,tfiatxfihe fel1eeieg points

would arise ier reeeneieeratiee in this appeal:

1)

.*ae erdee of eefietiefi. If it. is so,

Whethefi’,_ fi§e V: fieepeedeefimplaineiff had
eemeeeueeedW:begbuiiding without there being

what

Vflweuld “fie. the_ effect ef execution of such

werk?. ._A

e:Whetee::,W:ee Tria} Court justified in
M%§eeeeeing the suit?

e§¢geé: the Judgment and decree ef the Trial
.ie$eert. are ix: be eete aside and remanded as

requested by the counsel for the appellant?

E8. The facts of this case are net in dispute

t0 the fellewing extent:

%/

%<f&%%N.&?&K.&. @w§%?a&-§ azmm' Q? mmmam fiffififl Gfifiéfié

_. . – – – " 821%.

<"<;.u,§..§Mfi€§ U?' mfiwmgflm Wéfiwffi Mama W?' %&KN£»?a§'A%fin WEWM Qfl§§%%';5 WE" %%§%¥"%§;%'¥}5M{fi. H§5C%E"§i K:

14

the appellants WA defendants ix; file” thé”%€it€en

statement since in the *evidefice “it -is gmat

contended kg; the appellantég thfit the:e«J@§Fdéfect

in congtruction of compognd by the pléifitiff. In
the circumstances, ihe said pdint is 3330 answered

again3t thé appe11aétg”

1%. En the fiésufii, tbé Appeal is dismissed.

Partiea ta béar theifjcoaisfi

Sdflu
Judge

Sd/-.

Judge