IN um HIGH: Couflr or I{ARNATA!€KP3°934'08
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD
mmn mm 'ran: 22-0 DAY our ocmnnn,
BEFORE
HON' BLE mt. JUSTICE _ _
WRIT PETITION No.3o934 OF goes [C~M”-{ctégij , V’ ”
B TWEE:
1
MANAGING DIRECTOR 3
KARNATAKA HRBAN WATER’ ‘é.’-LJPPLY’A.v ”
ARI) DRIANAGE EOARD ‘ .
JALABHAVAN
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BANGALORE – 29 A ”
THE CHIEF ENGINEERH
KARNATAKA URBAN W–.”.TER SEIPPLY7 .. ”
AND DRIANAGE*BOAlRD? r§;:1AgwA:px ‘ ”
THE –SLfPEi¥§–ljE}?_P ,E”w;§1nE.ER
KARNIETAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY
AND DRiANAGE’v.BC)ARE”, DHARWAD
.5 ~1*:1~:1};1_FAE:<,*:«*.czi":'1'~.rB:_.ENGINEER
""KAf%I*é'*ATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY
~ AND DRIANA_GE BOARD
s;.1:}a$§;IvC.;qg;CAR, BELGAUM
* , 'mE _asé;Is3I'A1\'r EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
"'KAR'NA'i'AKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY
A:\.£D'£)RIANAGE BOARD
L HIDKAL DAM
" DIST: BELGAUM PE'I'§'I'IONERS
(EY SR1. DAYANAND M BANDI,
M] s. KESVY 85 00., ADV.,}
CHANNAMALLAPPA
S] O SHIDAGIRIYAPPA WALI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
OCC: FWD CON'I'RAC'I'OR
— 2 – WP30934.08
R/O SUNDADHGLI, TQ GOKAK, _
DIST: BELGAUM RES.1’_?O_NJ}Ei%IT”
[BY SRE. SHIVARAJ FMUDHOL, ADV.’;«’}:_:”
THIS WRIT PE’I’I’I’ION 18 men U.:¢eER’AR”r1C%§E:e e226/’227’v–oF4 :
THE CONS’I’ITU’¥’I()N OF INDIA, PRAYING TO}QUPLSH—.T§§E3..eL’0RDER ‘
D’§’D.7.8.2008 AND 12.9.2008 PASSED B? THE “PRL.*CIV3L
DN.,] GOKAK IN E. P. 42/2008 VIBE ANX~C–.AND . A
THIS PETITION comma; ON–,fF”O,R ekbgkae ‘I’H I§:
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:~ ~
This is a f1’i\folo1;s~ ‘Lthe instance of
unwilling interest it appears
to be is f1IVV1’disputed decree which
they hath; was a decree pursuant to an
Award befere 44 J
are addressed by Sri.
kramed counsel for the petitioners –
_ Judgffi_en§~ and which are countered with equal
.4 .y?’e’h¢I1J61it:et’by Sri. Shivaraj P Mudhol, learned counsel for
V’ – decree holder who has also moved an
’11’ appficafion for vacating the intezim order, after examining
the writ petition and arguments, I find there is absolutely no
merit in the writ petition for the sinapie reason that the
§/
– 3 – WP’30934.08
execution proceedings are for realimtion of 3.
the wxit petitioners had undoubtedly
Writ petitioners had not safisfied af:1y’pa:t ‘ 1.
though the learned counsel for
the Judment Debtors had any
any part of the decree a*.sV_.t_I1e Judge of
the executing court and order is bad
in law, as of the Judgment
Debtors to wt i1e steps are taken for
execution (if eV.:iflecr¢:v_V ” court, there is
absolutely and 1 am not inclined to
interfere iA11s1;@f objections raised in the
ink 1,/;<:_1A_'{'a1' of the order, while exercising
% 227 of the Consfitution of India.
. Uthe interim order granted earlier -is vacated
* petition itself is dismissed.
saI-
judge
W__