Disputed title to funds cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction and must be pursued before the civil forum.

A serious dispute over ownership of money represented by drafts, involving competing factual claims and the need to prove title, was held unsuitable for writ jurisdiction. The HC found that such controversies cannot be satisfactorily resolved on disputed facts requiring evidence, and therefore declined to adjudicate the ownership claim in writ proceedings. The parties were left to establish title and liability before the appropriate civil forum, and it was clarified that any later civil proceedings would not require notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition could be entertained and relief granted on a serious dispute of fact as to ownership of the money represented by the drafts and the consequent attachment of that amount.

Analysis: The dispute turned entirely on competing factual claims regarding who had deposited the amount with the Central Coal Fields Ltd. The Court held that such a controversy could not be satisfactorily resolved in writ jurisdiction, particularly when the matter required proof of title and assessment of evidence. The Court also clarified that the petitioner was at liberty to pursue a civil suit or other appropriate forum to establish title, and that no notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 would be required for such future proceedings.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for adjudication of this factual controversy and was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The Court left the parties to establish title and liability before the appropriate civil forum, while declining to decide the ownership dispute in writ proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A serious and contested question of title or ownership involving disputed facts is not ordinarily decided in writ jurisdiction and must be pursued before the appropriate civil forum.

---