CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.--- The appellant was awarded contract by the respondents and an agreement was also executed between the appellant and the respondents. The appellant allegedly completed the project in question and submitted the bills to the respondents. The respondents failed to release the payment and the appellant being aggrieved filed writ Petition No. 5428/2001, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, vide impugned order dated 9.4.2001.
2. , Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant filed similar writ petition, which was dismissed by-the learned Single Judge. The appellant being aggrieved filed ICA No. 519, of 1997, which was accepted by the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 19.6.1997.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge, was erred in law to dismiss the Constitution petition of the appellant and directed the appellant to file the suit before the competent Court for the recovery of the amount in question against the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of the learned Single Judge, is not in accordance with the law laid down by the superior Courts. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon 1998 SCM R 226 (M/s. Airport Support Service's case) and 1998 CLC 1890 (M/s. Huffaz Seamless Pipe Industries Ltd.'s case). He further submits that the amount was admitted by the respondents and in such situation, there is only remedy available to the appellant is the Constitution petition.
4. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused. The record ourselves. The claim of the appellant was not admitted by the respondent, as the appellant failed to point out any order passed by respondents to this extent. It is settled proposition of law that Constitution petition is not maintainable for the resolution of the disputed question of fact, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad .Younas Khan's case (1993 SCM R 618). It is also settled principle of law that Constitution petition is not maintainable in presence of Arbitration clause as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in 1999 SCM R 121 (Project Director, Baluchistan Minor Irrigation and Agricultural Development Project, Quetta Cantt. Vs. M/s. Murad All and Company's). It is also settled principle of law that the writ petition is not maintainable for enforcement of the contract simply where the liability was not admitted by the respondents. In arriving to this conclusion, we are fortified by the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:- PLD 1958 SC 267 (The Chandpur Mills Ltd.'s case).
PLD 1962 SC 108 (M/s. Momin Motor Company's case).
The Honourable Supreme Court has considered the aforesaid proposition of law in Nizamuddin's case and 1999 SCM R 467 laid down the following principle:- "It is axiomatic that every case is to be adjudged on its own facts, circumstances and merits. If in a particular. Case, both the parties admit the factual aspect which give rise to the dispute and the Court feels that the matter is of such an urgent nature that the very remedy would get frustrated, if the aggrieved party is directed to seek redress through alternative remedy available under the law, then in that case, it would be proper for the Court to entertain the writ petition."
The learned Single Judge, rightly relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad A.I Butt's case (PLD 1997 SC 823). In the present case, claim of the appellant was not admitted by the respondents. This fact brings the case of the appellant in the area, which requires investigation into cross allegations and facts. It is settled principle of law that each and every case is to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable on facts and law. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.