1. - Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.11.1992 by which the petition filed by the petitioner, challenging the attachment of the property in respect of alleged dues has been dismissed inter alia on the ground that the petition raise disputed questions of fact.

3. The petitioner has challenged the attachment of his property in connection with the recovery of alleged out standing dues against respondent No. 5 Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Bakhi vide Annexurc 3 in which it has been seated that the house has been attached on 5.10.1987, in which the petitioner has re-entered and he was required to vacate the same.

4. It is true that the jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 is discretionary and in a given circumstances where enquiry into complex facts, pleading and allegation needing collection of evidence through a regular trial is required, the court may refuse to entertain the petition and relegate the litigant to remedies where such questions can be properly determined. This is not because the court lacks jurisdiction to determine such questions or decide even disputed questions of fact but because a