1 D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.675/2002 Smt.Saroj Jain V/s Rajasthan Housing Board & ors. 16.3.2010 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Jagdish Bhalla Hon'ble Mr.Justice Dinesh Maheshwari Mr.R.K.Soni for the appellant. Mr.Rajesh Parihar for the respondents. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 23.08.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner. The impugned order reads as under:- “As per Division Bench pronouncement in Rajasthan Housing Board V.Avasan Mandal, 1996 (1) WLC (Raj.) 10, present petition is not maintainable, therefore, the petition stands dismissed.” This appeal was admitted on 4.10.2002 after noticing the submission made on behalf of the appellant-petitioner that she would confine the appeal to the prayer no.2 made in the writ petition which, according to the learned counsel for the appellant- petitioner, was not considered by the learned Single Judge. So far as the prayer no.2 in the writ petition is concerned, the same reads as follows:- “(ii) the respondents may be directed to give possession of the Medium Income Group Type 'A' house after completing its construction including completion of the deficiencies as pointed out by the petitioner in her letter Annex.11. The respondents may be directed to give possession of the house to the petitioner forthwith failing which the respondents may be directed to compensate the petitioner by paying her mesne profit at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month till giving possession of the house to her.” 2 It is not in dispute that in relation to the same dispute and claiming the same relief, the appellant did approach the District Forum, Consumer Protection, Chittorgarh by filing complaint case no.272/1999; and the said complaint case was dismissed on 27.06.2000. The appellant also filed a civil suit bearing no.117/2000 in the court of Civil Judge (JD), Chittorgarh; but the plaint was rejected on an application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on 6.9.2001 after the Court found that the requisite notice under section 50 of the Rajasthan Housing Board Act had not been served. From the material placed on record it appears that the petitioner did serve a notice on the respondent Housing Board on 1.10.2001 (Annex.18) for the purpose of filing a civil suit but, thereafter, chose to agitate the matter in the writ jurisdiction. We are clearly of the view that the appellant- petitioner, having already taken recourse to the other remedies, having suffered the decisions, and having served the notice for filing a civil suit, was not entitled to agitate the same issue by way of writ petition; and there is no reason for us to consider such issues in this intra-court appeal. For their very nature, the issues sought to be raised by the appellant involved highly disputed questions of fact and accounting which could not have been determined in the writ jurisdiction. In view of the aforesaid, there is no force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs. During the course of submissions, it has, of course, been pointed out that the appellant has approached the authorities concerned for amicable settlement of the matter; and a copy of the 3 application, said to have been moved by her alongwith affidavit on 11.3.2010, has been placed before us. Though we would not like to make any comment in relation to the application said to have been moved by the appellant for amicable settlement of the matter but, looking to the circumstances, clarify that this order shall not be of any impediment for the parties to enter into negotiations/settlement, if they so desire. (Dinesh Maheshwari)J. (Jagdish Bhalla)C.J. Parmar