None present for the petitioner, even though matter was called twice in the morning session. Notice was sent to the petitioner by registered A.D. on 06.11.2009 directing the petitioner to remove the defects. The Registry has reported that the defects have been removed. In the notice-dated 06.11.2009, the petitioner was specifically informed that the matter shall be taken up for admission today. The petitioner has sent application dated 23.11.09 that he is not in a position to appear and the petition be disposed off in accordance with law.     

      –2-

Be that as it may, I have gone through the record. The petitioner has come in revision against concurrent finding of the two fora below. The district forum after taking into consideration the material on record has come to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to prove his case. The grievance of the petitioner was that he had engaged the opposite party for painting the building at a total cost of Rs.1,22,500/- and the said work was to be completed within 50 days . According to the complainant, the opposite party not only did not complete the work within 50 days but also left the work incomplete and as such, the petitioner had to pay Rs.75,000/- to a painter for completion of the work. The district forum found that the complainant, after being satisfied, had released the last payment of Rs.24,500/- on 15.7.06, which was within 50 days of the work order. Therefore, the district forum concluded that if the work had not been completed within stipulated time or the work was left incomplete or the work was of inferior quality, the complainant would not have paid the last payment. The district forum also found that the petitioner had failed to place on record any proof of payment of Rs.75,000/- to another painter, nor affidavit of any painter was filed to substantiate

                  -3-

the same. The plea that the petitioner was deprived of letting out the building for want of painting was also rejected. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed. These findings were confirmed by the State Commission.

          In view of the above, I do not find any merit whatsoever in this revision petition, as I do not find any irregularity, illegality or jurdictional error in the order of the fora below. Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.