Contractual money claims on disputed facts are not fit for writ jurisdiction, and repetitive writs for the same relief are abuse of process.

A writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable for recovery of contractual dues arising from a non-statutory supply contract where adjudication required findings on disputed facts, including the adequacy of supplies, correctness of rates, conformity with contractual terms, and limitation. The proper remedy was a civil suit, including summary procedure under Order XXXVII CPC where appropriate. A second writ petition seeking the same relief after an earlier dismissal was also not entertainable, as repetitive invocation of writ jurisdiction for the same monetary claim amounted to abuse of process.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for recovery of contractual dues involving disputed questions of fact, and whether a second writ petition seeking the same relief can be entertained after an earlier dismissal.

Analysis: The relief claimed was essentially a money claim arising out of a non-statutory contract for supply of goods. Questions such as whether the supplies were made satisfactorily, whether the rates were correct, whether the goods conformed to contractual requirements, and whether the claim was within limitation were held to be matters that could not appropriately be determined in writ jurisdiction. The proper remedy lay in an ordinary civil suit, where such disputes could be adjudicated on evidence, with summary procedure also being available in an appropriate case under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court further noted that an earlier writ petition seeking the same relief had already been dismissed, and that filing a fresh writ on the same claim amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court.

Conclusion: A writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable for adjudication of the contractual money claim raised on disputed facts, and the second writ petition seeking the same relief was not entertainable.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was left to be pursued, if so advised, before the ordinary civil forum and not in writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Contractual monetary claims turning on disputed questions of fact are not ordinarily amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, and a repetitive writ for the same relief after an earlier dismissal is an abuse of process.

---