The High Court's discretionary powers under Article 226 should not be invoked when sufficient alternate remedies are available, emphasizing the principle of exhaustion of remedies in civil litigation.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J.

1. The instant Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by one, Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey and his wife ("Appellant") seeking setting aside of the Order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in W.P.(C) 11865/2022 ("Impugned Order"). Vide the Impugned Order, the Ld. Single Judge dismissed W.P.(C) 11865/2022, while giving the Petitioner therein i.e the Appellant herein the liberty to pursue the civil suit instituted by the Petitioners themselves.

2. The Appellants have placed on record the following facts to show that they have been defrauded by one builder, namely, Kunal Structural Developers & Industries Pvt. Ltd. ("Respondent No. 3/Respondent Builder") in collusion with Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited ("Respondent No. 4"):

a) The Appellants are homebuyers who had booked residential flats in a Project namely, "Nikhil Woodland Apartment" situated at Agra, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the "Project") of Respondent No. 3, by paying an amount of Rs. 7 Lacs as booking fees.

b) Pursuant thereto, the Appellants were given allotment letters in 2014 and 2015. Thereafter, the Petitioners also executed Builder Buyer Agreements in favour of the Appellants with respect to their allotted unit.

c) On 21.01.2015, the Appellants and Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 entered into a tripartite agreement which recorded that the Appellants had sought a loan of about 30 Lacs from the Bank i.e Respondent No. 4, and that Appellants were to pay monthly EMI, and pre-EMI to the Bank in pursuance thereof.

d) Thereafter, on 25.05.2015, a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") was entered into between the Appellants and Respondent Builder. This MOU recorded two things. First, that the Appellants were to avail of a housing loan from Respondent No. 4. Second, that upon the disbursement of the loan, Respondent No. 3 would pay a mutually agreed upon assured return. It also noted that the Builder would advance to the Appellants the monthly EMI, and Pre-EMI, which was to be paid by the Appellants to the Bank.

e) However, by 2017, the situation changed. Respondent No. 3 stopped paying the said EMI to the Appellants. Further, the homebuyers, including the Appellants, were not handed over their units by this point as well. The Appellants have also brought to light other transgressions committed by the Respondent No. 3 including that Respondent No. 3 has sold plots in the Project to multiple buyers.

f) The Appellants have also alleged of collusion between the Respondent Builder and Bank, which, according to the Appellants is borne out from the fact that Respondent No. 4 did not carry out the requisite due diligence before giving loans to prospective home-buyers.

g) Placing these facts on record, the Appellants approached the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Sunil Kumar Pandey v. Kunal Structural Developers & Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (CC No. 1402 of 2017).

h) Vide Order dated 10.09.2020, Respondent No. 3 has been directed to return the amount of Rs. 7 Lacs advanced by the Appellant as booking fee. Furthermore, the Respondent No. 3 herein has also been directed to pay the EMIs paid by the Appellants to Respondent No. 4, and pay pending EMIs, if any, to Respondent No. 4 as well.

i) As this final order was not complied with, the Appellants initiated execution proceedings against the Respondent Builder. The Appellants even obtained an execution order dated 05.04.2022, wherein the Hon'ble State Commission issued warrants of attachments of immovable properties for an amo