but it does include every fact, which is required to be proved. [See the observations made in ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Astha Kumar, (2015) SCC Online Delhi 13319, in paragraphs 8.2 and 8.3; Rajasthan High Court Advocates’ Association vs Union of India & Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 294 and The State of Madras vs C.P. Agencies & Anr. AIR 1960 SC 1309. ] 11.2 When examined from this angle, to my mind, both the writ and the suit action relate to the same issue, which is, non-payment of monies connected with the work executed against work orders, detailed out therein. It appears, in order to make the writ petition viable, the appellant had also challenged the amended clause 63(b) of the contract which, I suspect, was a plea raised as, a writ, simplicitor, for recovery of money, would not, perhaps, lie. On the other hand, in the suit, a more direct approach was adopted though, there was a reference to the fact that since there was an inter se dispute amongst the respondents with regard to release of money, dues had not been paid to the appellant. To my mind, at the heart of both actions, was a claim for recovery of dues against work, purportedly, executed by the appellant qua the work orders in issue. In my opinion, if any, other approach is adopted, in gathering, what the two actions were all about, it would amount to missing wood from the trees.
