By the Court.—The petitioners claim to have supplied spare parts during 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 to the Lucknow Nagar Nigam (the second respondent). According to the petitioners, their bills for 2008-09 was cleared in 2010, but the payments, for which bills were raised for the period 2009 to 2013, have not been made. According to the petitioners, a deduction of 22% has been made from the bills without justification. The relief which is sought in these proceedings is a mandamus to the respondents to make payment of an amount of Rs. 1,34,71,670/- in respect of the spare parts allegedly supplied by the petitioners to the Central Works Shop of the second respondent during financial years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

2. At the outset, a preliminary objection was raised by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents to the maintainability of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. We are of the view that, in a matter of this nature which pertains to alleged non-payment of dues under a contract for supply of goods, it would neither be prudent nor judicious for this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to grant relief, which is in substance, is a prayer for a money decree. These matters, it must be emphasized, are not those relating to statutory contracts but are purely non-statutory contracts. Whether work has been satisfactorily performed, whether the rates which had been quoted are in accordance with the terms of the contract, whether the goods were of a quality as mandated, and above all, whether the claim is within limitation or otherwise, are issues which cannot appropriately be adjudicated upon under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. Increasingly, in cases like the one in hand, instead of taking recourse to the jurisdiction of the ordinary Civil Court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, recourse is taken to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226. That is not permissible. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is intended to provide the ordinary civil remedy for the adjudication of such claims. As a matter of fact, we also indicated to the learned counsel that even within the purview of the Civil Procedure Code, provisions such as those under Order 37 of the C.P.C. contain an adequate safeguard by laying down a summary remedy or procedure which can be availed of in cases where under a written contract, money is due and payable. Under Order 37, the defendant has to make out a triable defence before being granted even leave to defend the suit.

5. Hence, in the present case, we see no reason or justification to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

6. Additionally, it must also be noted that the petitioners had moved an earlier writ petition seeking a mandamus in terms of the very same prayer, namely the prayer for payment of an amount of Rs. 1,34,71,670/- together with interest at 18% per annum. The earlier writ petition (Misc. Bench No. - 6699 of 2013), M/s. Alaska Tech. Through its Partner Sanjeet Singh v. Nagar Nigam, Lucknow and others, was dismissed by the Division Bench on 24 September 2013 on the ground that a mandamus could be issued only where there is a violation of a statutory duty. Disputed questions of fact can only be adjudicated through a competent Court in a regular suit or before any other statutory forum and this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would ordinarily not adjudicate upon such matters.

7. For convenience of reference, it would be appropriate to extract the relevant part of the order of the Division Bench which reads as follows:

“Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 1,34,71,670/