1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1702 OF 2007 Indus Exim Pvt.Ltd. And anr. ...Petitioners v/s City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. ...Respondents Mr D.H. Mehta i/b M/s Divya Shah and Associates for Petitioners. Mr C.M. Lokesh i/b Hegde and Associates for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND R.S. MOHITE JJ. DATE : 13TH JULY 2009. 2 P.C. :- 1] By this petition, the petitioners are virtually seeking a decree of possession and in the alternative, refund of a part of the amount which is alleged to have been paid by them. Admittedly, the respondent  Corporation has granted lease of certain premise to the petitioners. The lease deed is dated 7 th February 2005. The petitioners on the same day have signed the possession receipt acknowledging receipt of possession of the area of which lease has been granted to it. The present petition is filed making a grievance that possession of the area of which lease has been granted to the petitioners has not been actually given in possession of the petitioners and that the petitioners are entitled to additional area of 9907.38 sq.ft. There is a serious dispute between the parties on the question whether entire area of which lease has been granted to the petitioners has been handed over to the petitioners or not. In our opinion, in view of the possession receipt which has 3 been signed by the petitioners, which is part of the registered document of lease, the petitioners are not entitled to contend that they have not received possession of the area of which lease was granted to them without challenging the possession receipt and seeking an order or at least a declaration that the statement made in that possession receipt is not correct. The petitioners have filed a report of the surveyor in support of their contention that they were not handed over possession of the area of which lease is granted to them. At the instance of the petitioners, the Court appointed an Advocate as Commissioner for taking measurements of area which is in possession of the petitioners. The Advocate has submitted the report but that report is not acceptable to the petitioners. The petitioners have filed supplementary report of an Architect. Thus, there is a serious dispute on the question whether the area of which lease has been granted to the petitioners has been delivered to the petitioners or not. In our opinion, such a disputed question of fact cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction of this 4 Court. The petitioners also claim a money decree in the amount of Rs.6,64,92,953/- in the alternative if it is found that the area which was agreed to be given to them on lease has not been given. In our opinion, as the first relief claimed itself cannot be granted in this petition, there is no question of considering the prayer for alternate relief made by the petitioners. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ABL International Ltd. And anr v/s Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. And others, reported in (2003) 10 SCALE 814. The learned counsel especially relies on the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 16 of the judgment which reads as under :- 16. A perusal of this judgment though shows that a writ petition involving serious disputed questions of facts which requires consideration of evidence which is not on record, will not normally be entertained by a court in the exercise of 5 its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This decision again, in our opinion, does not lay down an absolute rule that in all cases involving disputed questions of fact the parties should be relegated to a civil suit. In this view of ours, we are supported by a judgment of this Court in the case of Smt Gunwant Kaur and ors. v/s Municipal Committee, Bhatinda and ors. (1969) 3 SCC 769 where dealing with such a situation of disputed questions of fact i a writ petition, this Court held :- The High Court observed that they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be determined after an affidavit in reply was filed by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition in limine. The High Court is not deprived 6 of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner s right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition. Rejection of a petition in limine will normally be justified, where the High Court is of the view that the petition is 7 frivolous or because of the nature of the claim made dispute sought to be agitated, or that the petition against the party against whom relief is claimed is not maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is such that it would be inappropriate to try it in the writ jurisdiction, or for analogous reasons. From the averments made in the petition filed by the appellants it is clear that in proof of a large number of allegations the appellants relied upon documentary evidence and the only matter in respect of which conflict of facts may possibly arise related to the due publication of the notification under section 4 by the Collector. In the present case, in our judgment, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the petition o the ground that it will not determine disputed 8 question of fact. The High Court has jurisdiction to determine questions of fact, even if they are in dispute and the present, in our judgment, is a case in which in the interests of both the parties the High Court should have entertained the petition and called for an affidavit in reply from the respondents, and should have proceeded to try the petition instead of relegating the appellants to a separate suit. Perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court, especially the portion quoted above shows that the Supreme Court has held that it cannot be laid down as a rule that whenever the High Court finds that there are disputed questions of fact to be decided, it cannot entertain the petition. The Supreme Court has held in a petition wherein disputed questions of fact are involved that if the dispute can be resolved on the basis of documents 9 on record, then the High Court is not justified in declining to entertain the petition only because there are disputed questions of fact to be determined. In the present case, we find that if we go by the document on record, then the petitioners have by executing the possession receipt admitted that they have received possession of the area of which lease was granted to them and they are trying to dispute that document without really challenging that document. In our opinion, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this petition. The petition therefore is dismissed, rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE R.S. MOHITE )