Mr K U Thomas vs Mr Jayaprakash on 26 June, 2009

IN 'THE awn COURT 0? KARN5TAKA,.'Bix'r~§{32XI;{§}§E  1'  'V

DATED THIS THE 26TH MY  :J{ 5'¥.SI_E-,.' irziogj--.___ 

PRESENTWA  _.._ %
THE HON*8LE MR. P.D.DI--N }§K&RANV,_ .c;;~1;§;;'«' JIJVSTICE

AND. _  V;
THE HoN'B1..E $5.3. JU,..<:';'i":C_:: AFZAVIND KUMAR

WRYE' PE'Tf1'fQI€ 3-so7;':;v2$:82  22009

BETWEEN

Mr.K.U.'}'hcmias,'I.V_,if. 'V '

Sfo  

Age: 5SVy¢a§~§,  x _,
R/atf3RC Qz1;§xrter%;,' _  .
Kalloragi, Esc::1az*e;V£1-u1i::a'T_a1'i1k; %
D.K.Di;~..=t:£'ix2t.    

_  '    Petitioner.
(By Piasafing V. R. Advocate)

I   Pfaliash,

S] 0' Li13.gafjpa5'Poojary,
Agfe: Major, .-
Ashraya.VC«0nst1'uctions,

  Civil cmisulcants 6:. Qloniractors,
  Boiwar,
'  mun: Taluk,
Saksllina Kannada.



5. On the basis of the pleadings the {}isi1*i<3tj'F:::ru1n

formulated the fcllowing points for o0n.si€1eratio:;;.__"'*  

(1) Whether the Camplainant pmves%4%I_:{ha-2..;1¢:¢"' ziés 
engaged the service, »..of ' opp.§<§éité.f   '-1:_o 

ccnsflnci new resixienfial   * 

(ii) Whether the  1'-'a"2'tv' V." V'pmveS§'.hV¢  150'-'£ '

a ztivil engineer 115 only " 3.  doing
work ofVdrg_1wing""pLi:a 53;: assisung in civil

<:0nst;ructi6:u?T -- . '

(i.:li} Wlgéthuer iiilié' *  'iamves that the
  has; fijoifiifiitted deficiency in

  . n  '
: :(iv) _' 1¥f _sVo,_  *£.¥:1e_* comgglainant is}: entiticd for

 ' . the: 
(V)  L' What o:':'i ¢.=:1"?'"'*

 2   F'offim..a..m;wemd point Nos. 1 to 3 in the nagafive

 '    and 5 as per the finai oxder where under it

'<*:Aoflt:t:111::ieé"L: the cemplainam i.e., the pefifionsr herein


 E



'7
failed to establish] prove that respondent had undertaktn

to constzuct the residenfial buiiding for the comggiainant
and accozfiixztgiy dismissed the compiaint

13~2–2{)O9 Armexlzm-‘B’.

6. Aggxieved by the same, tllig pefii;i&31§ei;f

appeal in Agpcal No.844/ 2{)0’9,__E.)efo1f:A 1

contending inter alia that zzfiigdimctcd
itself in not Considegjrizg by the
complainant 11.6.’, the in its pmper
perspective. Le, tbf: State
C.:OB.1fl1i5S}I.(i’.$1{.}V ylaccd before the
Bistrifsf « urgeti in the appeal
memsfanfifim éppea} with a iibcrty to the

compizainézéiut to {he Civil Court on the ground thai

it _’:ii’?”ifiS _:A}»V”.1()’Cu p9$éibl.r:r….{:> record any finding in a summary

‘ they are disputed facts . With the abcve said

ofihsafvéificgfi; appeal came to he Injected.

“‘%*”V

f
5;

5

r 3″

9
the Civil Court fax’ redressal of his gxievarices. Hence, Wit 610

not see any infixmity in the order passed by

Commission and aciizcmdingly, the writ petition _?§i#.?”:’e.jt:z;:1}Lc:ii;__:;1;:4

deveid of merits with 113 order as $0 cosis. _

% ‘

Index: Ycs.:;”N;{:i_««._:: ~’ iV’ . j L
We§ a