ORDER 1. THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST A JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT DATED 14-10-1999. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS: THE APPELLANT AND THE RESPONDENT ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT FOR SUPPLY OF COAL BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE APPELLANT. THE RELEVANT TERM OF THE CONTRACT READ AS UNDER: "(A) PRICE PAYABLE WILL BE RS 2691 PER MT FOR DELIVERY AT RTPS. THIS PRICE IS ALL-INCLUSIVE INCLUDING ANY APPLICABLE TAXES, DUTIES, LEVIES, ETC. AND WILL REMAIN FIRM FOR THE COMPLETE SUPPLY." 3. THE COAL WAS SUPPLIED UNDER THE CONTRACT. FROM TIME TO TIME THE APPELLANT SUPPLIED C FORMS TO THE RESPONDENT, AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE RESPONDENT PAID ONLY 4% SALES TAX. THE APPELLANT CLAIMED THAT, AS THERE WAS REDUCTION IN THE SALES TAX, THE BENEFIT OF THAT REDUCTION MUST GO TO THEM. THEY, THEREFORE, SOUGHT TO DEDUCT AMOUNTS FROM THE AMOUNTS PAYABLE TO THE RESPONDENT. THE RESPONDENT THUS FILED A WRIT PETITION. THAT WRIT PETITION WAS DISMISSED ON 28-7-1998 BY A SINGLE JUDGE ON THE GROUND THAT A WRIT WAS NOT AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY AND THAT A SUIT HAD TO BE FILED. THE APPEAL AGAINST THAT JUDGMENT WAS DISMISSED ON 11-9-1998 ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO INFIRMITY IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE SINGLE JUDGE. 4. ANOTHER PARTY I.E. ONE WEST ASIA TRADING CORPORATION ALSO HAD AN IDENTICAL CONTRACT WITH THE APPELLANT (HEREIN). THEY FILED A WRIT PETITION FOR RECOVERY OF AMOUNTS DEDUCTED FROM THEIR BILLS ON IDENTICAL GROUNDS. THAT WRIT PETITION WAS ALSO DISMISSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE. HOWEVER, THE APPEAL FILED BY THEM WAS ALLOWED ON 16-4-1999. 5. AFTER THAT APPEAL WAS ALLOWED, A REVIEW WAS FILED IN THE PRESENT MATTER. THAT REVIEW CAME TO BE ALLOWED BY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON 14-10-1999. HENCE THIS CIVIL APPEAL. 6. THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAD HELD THAT THERE WAS NO DISPUTED QUESTION OF FACT AND THAT A WRIT WAS MAINTAINABLE. IN OTHER WORDS THE REVIEW WAS ALLOWED ON THE BASIS OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16-4-1999 IN THE MATTER OF WEST ASIA TRADING CORPORATION. 7. IN OUR VIEW, THE REVIEW COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT B SOME OTHER COURT HAD TAKEN A DIFFERENT VIEW. MERELY BECAUSE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE IS NO GROUND TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT ALREADY PASSED. 7. IN OUR VIEW, THE REVIEW COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT B SOME OTHER COURT HAD TAKEN A DIFFERENT VIEW. MERELY BECAUSE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE IS NO GROUND TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT ALREADY PASSED. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE JUDGMENT IN WEST ASIA TRADING CORPORATION CASE HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY THIS COURT ON 14-12-1999. A REVIEW PETITION WHICH WAS FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14-12-1999 HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY US TODAY. 8. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND IS SET ASIDE. 9. IT MUST BE MENTIONED THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS ALREADY FILED SUIT NO. 1432 OF 2000 IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT BANGALORE FOR THE SAME RELIEF. THAT SUIT IS PENDING. AS THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES HAS BEEN PENDING IN THE COURT FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, WE REQUEST THE CITY CIVIL COURT TO DISPOSE OF D THAT SUIT AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE AND WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM TODAY. 10. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. THERE WILL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.