Decided on July 23,1990

State Cadre Authority Appellant
K S Bajpai Respondents


- (1.)Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Special leave is granted,
(2.)The impugned judgment of the High court has been passed in favour of respondent 1 who made an application under Article 226 of the constitution claiming money relief against the appellants alleging that he (the respondent) was engaged as a lawyer and accordingly appeared and worked for the appellants in some case. The appellant denied the liability and disputed several allegations of fact. The High court has decided the case in favour of the respondent on the basis of affidavits and some documents which are not accepted by the appellants as authentic.
(3.)The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that having regard to the nature of the claim and the issues arising between the parties dependent on evidence, the remedy by way of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution was not appropriate arid by the summary procedure adopted by the High court, the appellants have been seriously prejudiced. We agree with them. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied on certain documents which according to him prove the respondents case. Since the documents are being challenged by the appellants, we do not think it is possible for us to go into the question of fact and decide the controversy on the basis of the incomplete evidence available on the record. We accordingly set aside the judgment under appeal and dismiss the writ application filed by the respondent in the High court but make it clear that it will be open to him to file a suit or follow any other remedy which may be available to him in law. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.