Writ Petition For Recovery Of Money Can't Be Entertained, Particularly When Civil Remedy Has Been Invoked : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently held that that writ petitions filed for seeking recovery of money due under the bills/invoices cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the writ petitioner has filed civil suit which came to be dismissed in default.A Bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar held so in the case Director of...
The Supreme Court recently held that that writ petitions filed for seeking recovery of money due under the bills/invoices cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the writ petitioner has filed civil suit which came to be dismissed in default.
A Bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar held so in the case Director of Agriculture & Ors. v M.V. Ramachandran.
BACKGROUND FACTS
Mr. M.V. Ramachandran (“Respondent”) filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, before the High Court of Kerala, seeking a direction to the Director of Agriculture (“Appellant”) to settle the bills/invoices of the Respondent.
The Single Judge of High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Appellant to settle the bills of the Respondent. The Appellant filed an appeal before the Division Bench of High Court which was dismissed. The order of Single Judge stood confirmed by the Division Bench.
Consequently, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court.
SUPREME COURT VERDICT
The Bench observed that in 2017 the Respondent (Original Writ Petitioner) had filed a civil suit before the District Court for recovery of the money allegedly due and payable under the bills/invoices and the same was the right remedy availed. However, the civil suit was dismissed in default. The Respondent took steps to restore the suit and withdraw it, but prior to the same the writ petition was filed before the High Court.
The Bench reprimanded the High Court’s decision to entertain the writ petition and observed as under:
“We fail to appreciate how the writ petition before the learned Single Judge could have been entertained for recovery of money alleged to have been due and payable under the bills/invoices. The learned Single Judge, as such, ought not to have been entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for recovery of money under the bills/invoices, more particularly, when in fact the original writ petitioner(s) availed the remedy before Civil Court and filed Civil Suit, which came to be dismissed in default.”
The Bench held that writ petitions for recovery of money due under bills/invoices cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench, allowing the writ petition, have been set aside. The Respondent has been granted liberty to pursue its remedy before the Civil Court through restoration of civil suit. The Trial Court has been directed to restore the Respondent’s suit if an application for restoration is made within six weeks,
Case Title: Director of Agriculture & Ors. v M.V. Ramachandran
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 220
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for recovery of money under the bills/invoices should not have been entertained by the High Court, more particularly, when in fact the original writ petitioner(s) availed the remedy before Civil Court and filed Civil Suit, which came to be dismissed in default.