N.K.JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal Under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dt. 26.5.92 whereby he has dismissed he writ petition filed by the appellant holding that the disputed questions of fact are involved in it.
(2.) MR . Mridul, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that it involves disputed questions of fact as the pleas raised by the petitioner appellant are supported by the documents rather the court should have summoned the record. He has also submitted that the court is not precluded to decide the disputed questions of fact particularly when none of the documents produced by the petitioner has been denied but the learned Single Judge has not considered them. He has relied on Smt. Gunwant Kaur and Ors. v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda and Ors. : AIR1970SC802 , Madan Mohan Maharaj v. State of Raj. and Ors. 1978 Vol. XXVIII -342), Sant Lal Bharti v. State of Punjab : [1988]2SCR107 and Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunni v. State of Madras and Ors. : AIR1959SC725 . On the other hand Mr. Vyas, learned Addl. Government Advocate has submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition as numerous disputed questions of fact are involved and the petitioner has alternative remedy which must be availed first and, therefore, this special appeal is not maintainable. He has relied on S.K. Bhatia and Ors. v. State of U.P and Ors. : [1983]3SCR595 State of U.P. and Anr. v. Labhchand 1993 Vol. 1 S VLR -117, Ashok Kumar v. State Bearing No. D.B.C. Special Appeal No. 1003/86 decided on 5.4.88 and Mohan Pandey and Ors. v. Smt. Usha Rani Rajgaria and Ors. 1992 J.T. 572.
(3.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the case law cited by the counsel for the parties.;