1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1400/2008 Radhey Shyam Agarwal & Anr. Vs. Jaipur Development Authority & Ors. Date of Judgment :: September 18, 2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Dr. P.C. Jain for the appellant(s). Mr. R.K. Agrawal for respondents no.2 to 4. Mr. Mahendra Goyal for the respondent-JDA. *** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12.8.2008 whereby writ petition of the appellant was disposed of as being not maintainable with direction to the civil court to decide the application for temporary injunction after hearing the parties. The appellant has also filed a suit for temporary injunction in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. When the appellant originally filed the writ petition, he did not withdraw the suit to pursue the remedy of writ petition, since according to his perception, he did not claim any relief against JDA therein nor did he implead JDA as one of the defendants in the suit. During pendency of this appeal, however the appellant applied for withdrawal of the civil suit but also insisted for liberty being granted to him to file fresh suit. The prayer for withdrawal of the suit was declined as it was conditional one. Dr. P.C. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that reliefs claimed in the civil suit are different than the ones prayed for in the present appeal and therefore, this Court should entertain the 2 writ petition to decide the same on merits. Legal rights of the petitioner are being infringed because JDA having not stopped the respondents no.2 to 4 from raising illegal constructions, has failed to act according to law. Shri R.K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, submitted that the suit covers the dispute which is being raised in the present writ appeal except the fact that the appellant has not impleaded the JDA as party; he can now be permitted to impleaded the JDA as party. It is contended that other remedy which may be available to the appellant is by way of appeal before the JDA Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), but in that case, the respondent should be not required to face litigation in two forums at the same time. Shri Mahendra Goya, learned counsel for the JDA submitted that the dispute of this nature can be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal in the scope of sub- section (8) of Section 83 of the JDA Act and the writ petition may not be the efficacious remedy for deciding the controversy involved in this matter. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we hardly find any ground for interference. The prayer which has been made is such, which in our opinion, can be gone into and decided upon by the Tribunal. Besides, the dispute which has been raised in the civil suit and the kind of prayers made in the plaint filed therein also substantially covers the controversy raised in the writ petition giving rise to this appeal. While, therefore, not interfering with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, we would like to observe that the appellant may either implead 3 the JDA as party in the pending civil suit or if he unconditionally withdraws the civil, he can approach the Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. In the face of available alternative remedies and in view of the fact that the appellant has already availed such remedy before one of the two forums, writ petition for deciding contentious issues, determination of which would call for inquiry into questions of fact, cannot be said to be maintainable. Learned Single Judge, in our view, was wholly justified in not entertaining the writ petition. With the aforesaid observations, this appeal stands disposed of. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. (NARAYAN ROY),CJ. Skant/-