( 1 ) THE only point that arises in this appeal is whether the division bench of the High court of Karnataka was justified in allowing the Writ Appeal filed by the respondent against the judgment of the learned single Judge of that High court, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was dismissed on the ground that it was not a proper remedy as the dispute between the parties pertained to correct interpretation of the terms of the contract and the claim was for money. ( 2 ) THE appellant-corporation had entered into a contract with the respondent for supply of coal @ Rs. 2,691. 00 per m. T. inclusive of applicable taxes, dues, levies etc. Pursuant to that contract coal was supplied by the respondent to the appellant and the appellant had also paid the price. Thereafter, a second order was placed for supply of another 30,000. 00 M. T. of coal on the same terms and conditions. The coal was supplied and payment was also made. Thereafter, the third order was placed again for 30,000. 00 M. T. coal. The respondent supplied coal and preferred bills for the amounts payable to it. The balance due as per the last invoice was Rs. 2,20,17,988. 00. While making payment the appellant deducted Rs. 1,13,99,535. 00 on the ground that the said amount was paid in excess in respect of all the three orders. This deduction came to be challenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition in the High court. ( 3 ) THE learned Single Judge of the High court was of the view that as the dispute between the parties arises out of the contract entered into between them and the dispute involves interpretation of the terms of that contract it could be properly resolved only after taking into consideration the correspondence between the parties and other evidence that may be adduced by them. He therefore, held that filing of a suit was the proper remedy. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. The Division bench took the view that no disputed questions of facts were involved in the present case because full payment was made under the previous two orders and no objection was raised regarding inclusion of 4 per cent central Sales Tax and therefore it was not open to the appellant to raise that dispute and deduct the amount. The Division bench took the view that no disputed questions of facts were involved in the present case because full payment was made under the previous two orders and no objection was raised regarding inclusion of 4 per cent central Sales Tax and therefore it was not open to the appellant to raise that dispute and deduct the amount. The division bench also held that the respondent was not seeking enforcement of any right flowing from the contract but was only asking for a direction to the appellant to release the amount due in respect of coal already supplied. It also held that the balance amount was payable under admitted terms of contract and therefore, the said amount was unjustly withheld. It allowed the appeal and directed the appellant to release Rs. 1,13,19,535. 00 with the interest at 12 per cent till the date of the payment. ( 4 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the High court failed to appreciate that the real dispute between the parties was with respect to the correct interpretation of clause 4 of the contract. He submitted that the said clause contemplated supplying coal at fixed rate but it was understood by the parties that if C-Form was supplied by the appellant then the appellant was to get the benefit of reduction in sales tax. On the other hand it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the contract was to supply coal at fixed rate and as it was inclusive of all taxes any change in the rate of sales tax was of no consequence to the appellant. He also tried to explain that the price quoted in the invoice after making deduction of 4 per cent Sales Tax was for their own purpose. It was a calculation made for the State Sales Tax Authorities in order to avoid payment of sales tax on sales tax. Thus, the real dispute between the parties is with respect to the correct interpretation of Clause 4 and what was the real agreement between the parties. It is not correct to say that there was no dispute on facts. Whereas the appellant contended that it was entitled to the benefit of payment of less sales Tax, the stand taken by the respondent was quite contrary. It is not correct to say that there was no dispute on facts. Whereas the appellant contended that it was entitled to the benefit of payment of less sales Tax, the stand taken by the respondent was quite contrary. Since the matter involves correct interpretation of the terms and conditions of the contract, as rightly contended by the learned counsel, and the dispute necessitates leading of evidence it should have been appreciated that petition under Article 226 was not a proper remedy. Considering the nature of the dispute we are of the opinion that a petition under Article 226 was not a proper remedy and the respondent should have filed a suit in the Civil court. ( 5 ) WE, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment passed by the Division bench of the High court and restore the judgment passed by the learned Single judge of that High court. If the respondent files a suit or adopts any other appropriate remedy then the same shall be disposed of as early as possible as much delay has taken place as a result of the respondent adopting a wrong remedy. In view of the facts and circumstances of case, there shall be no order as to costs.