Supreme Court Limits Writ Jurisdiction on Contract Disputes

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's judgment that had quashed the cancellation of a contract and directed recovery of a sum. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have adjudicated disputed factual matters in its writ jurisdiction. It emphasized that future disputes related to the contract should be resolved by a civil court based on evidence, without being influenced by the High Court's observations. The appeal was allowed without costs, clarifying the limitations of the High Court's writ jurisdiction in handling disputed factual issues.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of High Court judgment quashing the cancellation of a contract and directing recovery of a sum.
2. High Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed factual issues in a writ petition.
3. Applicability of evidence in future disputes related to the contract.

Issue 1: Validity of High Court judgment
The Supreme Court reviewed a case where the High Court had quashed the cancellation of a contract and directed recovery of a sum. The contract, awarded for two years, had expired by the time of the judgment. The appellant contended that the High Court should not have delved into disputed factual matters in its writ jurisdiction. The appellant argued that the respondent was prevented from working the contract by a Truckers' Union, not by the appellant as claimed. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellant's stance, emphasizing that the High Court should not have interfered in such disputed matters. The Court directed that any future disputes regarding the contract should be adjudicated by a civil court based on evidence without being influenced by the High Court's observations.

Issue 2: High Court's jurisdiction on factual disputes
The Supreme Court opined that the High Court erred in adjudicating seriously disputed factual matters in a writ petition. The respondent had alleged prevention from working the contract by the appellant, which was contested. The Court noted that since the facts were in dispute and no factual finding could be made without considering evidence, the High Court should not have exercised its writ jurisdiction. The parties were advised to approach a civil court for resolution.

Issue 3: Applicability of evidence in future disputes
Given the expiration of the contract term, the Supreme Court directed that any future disputes regarding the contract should be resolved by a court based on evidence presented before it, disregarding any observations made by the High Court. The Court dissolved the interim order and stated that claims related to the period under the interim order should be decided by a competent court if necessary in any future disputes between the parties. The appeal was allowed without costs.

This judgment clarifies the limitations of the High Court's writ jurisdiction in dealing with disputed factual matters, emphasizing the role of evidence and civil courts in resolving such disputes effectively.

---