AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi Malimath, J
Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
The instant writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner seeking for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent nos. 1 to 3 not to recover the
amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- from the writ petitioner, which is lying with respondent nos. 4 and 5; a writ of mandamus to direct respondent nos. 1 to 3 to
return the amount of Rs. 16,50,000/- to the writ petitioner along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a; a writ of mandamus directing respondent nos. 4
and 5 to make the payment of entire amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- to the writ petitioner and other consequential reliefs.
By the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.
Shri T.A. Khan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant’s counsel, would submit that the learned Single Judge has committed an
error in dismissing the writ petition. Even otherwise, the material on record would clearly indicate that relief should have been granted to the writ
petitioner.
Heard Smt. Anjali Bhargava, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Prima facie, the reason assigned by the learned Single Judge, in the order
under appeal, appears to be appropriate, which does not call for any interference.
Even otherwise, we are of the view that the relief, as sought by the writ petitioner, is a relief which could very well be agitated before the
appropriate Civil Court. It is the Civil Court alone, which has the jurisdiction in matters relating to contract or recovery of money or otherwise.
Even though a Writ Court may have jurisdiction to consider matters relating to contract etc, we are of the view that, so far as the facts and
circumstances of this case are concerned, there are no special grounds for interference, especially when there is an alternative and efficacious
remedy of filing a suit before the Civil Court.
Under these circumstances, we deem it just and appropriate that the writ petitioner be relegated to the Civil Court to work out his remedies.
At this stage, Shri T.A. Khan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant’s counsel, submits that he may be granted four weeks’
time to file an appropriate suit before the Civil Court. Learned senior counsel would submit that, since hectic efforts are being made by the
respondents to recover the said amount, there may be an interim relief of restraining them from recovering the amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- for a period
of four weeks only.
On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that there is no impediment to grant such a relief. The relief being granted to the writ petitioner is
only for a very limited period only to enable him to file a suit before the Civil Court.
Consequently, the recovery of the amount of Rs.10,50,000/-, from the writ petitioner by the respondents, is stayed for a period of four weeks from
today, with a liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court seeking appropriate reliefs. The special appeal is disposed off
accordingly.