IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.337 of 2008 SANJAY KUMAR SHUKLA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Akashdeep, Advocate For the Respondent : M/s Santosh Kr. Singh, SC 22 Mahendra Pd. Gupta, Adv. --------------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ---------- Dated, the 4th July, 2008. Re: I.A. No. 2625 of 2008 Appeal suffers from delay of 38 days and for condonation thereof, an application ( I.A. No. 2625 of 2008) has been made. Even if we condone the delay, for the cause shown in the application, we are of the view that the appeal has no merit. 2. As a matter of fact, the Single Judge has been quite considerate in passing an order on 21st January, 2008 directing the respondents to make payment of the work done by the appellant although the matter related to pure and simple civil dispute. That pursuant to the order dated 21st January, 2008, the payment has been made by the respondents does not seem to be in dispute. If the appellant has any claim of interest on delayed payment or unjustified deduction, the appellant must pursue ordinary civil remedy. - 2 - 3. The counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ABL International Ltd. & anr. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & ors. 2004(3) Supreme Court Cases 553. 4. That the High Court has jurisdiction to go into the question of facts, if required, is beyond any doubt. But at the same time, howsoever wide the jurisdiction of the High Court is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not proper to go into the ordinary civil dispute of unpaid amount of a contract. In the present case, the payment has already been made to the appellant now. The dispute about interest and/or unjustified deduction cannot be gone into in a high prerogative jurisdiction. 5. Appeal is dismissed in limine. 6. This disposes of I.A. No. 2625 of 2008 as well. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Anil/