JUDGMENT : N.V. Anjaria, J. 1. By invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed that (i) to reimburse the money paid by the petitioner (ii) to direct respondent Bank to remove encumbrance-Boja from the agricultural land in question (iii) to direct the respondent to pay all the expenses and (iv) to declare that the officials of the respondent Bank have committed a fraud. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is tribal and illiterate person, that his father took agricultural loan for purchase of tractor from the respondent-State Bank of India, Fort Songadh Branch in the year 2006. According to the petitioner, he paid money in the loan account in respect of which payments, copies of receipts are produced on record. The father of the petitioner died on 18.05.2013. According to the petitioner, after the death of the father, respondent Bank snatched away the tractor from his house without any notice or information on the ground of non-payment of dues of the Bank. 3. It is stated that the Bank did not give any statement for long time regarding the dues. When the statement of loan account was given, the total money paid was shown to be Rs. 4,76,471/-. The loan was taken for Rs. 3,47,000/-. The case of the petitioner is that when the loan was taken for Rs. 3,47,000/- and the total amount paid was shown to be Rs. 4,76,471/-, there was an excess payment for Rs. 1,29,471/-. It is the further case of the petitioner that he being a tribal, was entitled to subsidy and the benefit of scheme of the government for waiver of the agricultural loan. According to the petitioner, despite these facts, the respondent Bank has shown Rs. 7 Lacs to be due and shown an encumbrance on the petitioner's land mortgaged with the Bank. 3.1 The petition came to be contested by the respondent Bank by filing an affidavit-in-reply through one Mahedrakumar Dineshchandra Shah, holding the post of Chief Manager. Therein, it is inter alia contended that the borrower late Shri Nathiyabhai Jethiyabhai Vasava and his son Sumanbhai Nathiyabhai Vasava-the petitioner herein jointly approached the Bank for agricultural finance requesting for two kinds of loan, one for tractor and the other under the Kishan Credit Card Scheme. Therein, it is inter alia contended that the borrower late Shri Nathiyabhai Jethiyabhai Vasava and his son Sumanbhai Nathiyabhai Vasava-the petitioner herein jointly approached the Bank for agricultural finance requesting for two kinds of loan, one for tractor and the other under the Kishan Credit Card Scheme. The loan agreements for tractor and in respect of Kishan Credit Card Scheme came to be executed on 18.03.2006. The tractor loan was for Rs. 4,47,000/- which amount was directly paid to the supplier by demand draft for purchase of New Swaraj Tractor. The Kishan Credit Card Loan was additional loan for Rs. 30,000/- which came to be sanctioned on the same day. 3.2 It is further stated by the Bank that for the said loan, charge over the agricultural land bearing Block No. 51 admeasuring Hectare 3-20-62 situated at Village Limbi, Taluka Songadh, Tapi was created on 13.06.2006. The limit of finance which could be availed against such charge was upto Rs. 7 Lacs. The document of charge was executed and was produced on record along with the affidavit-in-reply. As far as loan for Rs. 30,000/- is concerned, the said limit was enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/- and the same came to be sanctioned and disbursed on 12.09.2011. The copy of the document in this regard is produced by the Bank along with the affidavit-in-reply. 4. It appears from the facts stated in the affidavit-in-reply that the tractor bearing RTO Registration No. GJ-19-B-2767 in the name of Mr. Nathiyabhai Jethiyabhai Vasava was seized by an agency namely M/s. Shree Siddhi Vinayak Seizing and Recovery Agency, Baroda from Village Pipal at 11.37 A.M. on 01.10.2013 in presence of Rakeshbhai Sumanbhai Vasava, Rajesh Sumanbhai Vasava. These persons signed panchanama and one of them happened to be the sons of the petitioner. The Bank thereafter issued notice dated 08.04.2013 seeking to recover its dues. The said notice was served and acknowledged by the petitioner. It is stated that the remarks were recorded by the Field Officer of the Bank that the petitioner made endorsement promising to pay Rs. 1,25,000/- on 30.04.2013, but the said commitment was not discharged by the petitioner. Annexing the copy of the said notice dated 08.04.2013, the Bank has averred to submit that despite service of notice and promise meted out as above, since the outstanding amount was not paid, the tractor was seized. 1,25,000/- on 30.04.2013, but the said commitment was not discharged by the petitioner. Annexing the copy of the said notice dated 08.04.2013, the Bank has averred to submit that despite service of notice and promise meted out as above, since the outstanding amount was not paid, the tractor was seized. 4.1 The respondent has produced copies of the statements in respect of two loans to show that according to it, Rs. 3,87,294/- in total for two loans being aggregate of Rs. 1,66,187/- plus Rs. 2,21,107/- are recoverable from the petitioner towards the loan facility extended. The Bank has given the break-up and the calculation in respect of tractor loan as well as Kishan Credit Card Loan in the affidavit with following details stated in tabular form, Tractor loan calculation Particular Amount Particular Amount Tractor loan on 18/3/2006 4,47,000/- Paid by petitioners in cash 2,47,500/- Inspection Charge 8675/- KCC transfer by petitioners 1,50,000/- Insurance 24,913/- Debt Relief to petitioners 78,971/- Notice charge 2,050/- Total paid by petitioners 4,76,471/- Seizure charge 20,437/- Tractor Sale Amount 2,29,000/- Interest From 18/03/2006 onwards 3,68,583/- Total expense of bank Rs. 8,71,658/- Total repayment to bank Rs. 7,05,471/- (Rs. 8,71,658-Rs. 7,05,471/-) Rs. 1,66,187/- still to be recovered from petitioners KCC loan calculation Particulars Amount Particulars Amount KCC disbursed on 12/09/2011 1,50,000/- Processing Charge 1, 000/- Inspection Charge 4, 972/- Interest from 12/09/2011 onwards 65, 135/- Total 2,21,107/- Rs. 2,21,107/- still to be recovered from petitioners 5. It was the submission of learned advocate Mr. Narpatsinh Vasava for the petitioner that loan amount was only Rs. 3,47,000/- against which the amount to the extent Rs. 4,76,471/- was paid and therefore, there was an excess payment. In this regard, he relied on the hand-written details mentioned in the statement of loan. Copy of statement reflected on the top it certain handwritten figures and details such as the total amount of loan, total amount paid, the amount towards waiver of loan adjusted and the total payment was written. They were in somebody's hand-writing. The purported copy of statement was showing details for the period from 17.03.2006 to 25.11.2013. Not only that it is not possible to accept that the said alleged details about hand-written figures relied on behalf of the petitioner showed that the loan was paid up and the excess amount was paid, it is not known or stated as to who mentioned the said hand-written details. Not only that it is not possible to accept that the said alleged details about hand-written figures relied on behalf of the petitioner showed that the loan was paid up and the excess amount was paid, it is not known or stated as to who mentioned the said hand-written details. It was entirely misplaced reliance and misconceived submission, and in any case, in the realm of disputed facts. 5.1 It was next submitted on the basis of the copies of the receipts of payment produced at Annexure-A that on different dates the petitioner had paid amounts towards the dues of the Bank in respect of the loan; amount of Rs. 50,000/- was shown to have been paid on 23.06.2007, further amount of Rs. 1,072/- on 22.06.2009, yet another Rs. 50,000/- on 15.05.2009, still on 20.06.2009 Rs. 8,928/- was shown to have been paid, Rs. 50,000/- shown to have been receipted on 29.07.2010, further on different dates being 25.07.2011, 10.10.2012, 27.08.2012 and 27.06.2013, the different amounts were shown to have been paid. On the basis of details of the said payments, a contention was raised that the Bank did not account for the said payments and has been claiming the dues. In order to test the said submission of learned advocate for the petitioner, when the statement of loan account for the period from 17.03.2006 to 25.11.2013, produced by the petitioner on record of the petition (Page 15) was scrutinized, the aforesaid payments for which the receipts are produced, have been shown by way of credit in the statement of loan account. As per the statement, the dues still remain payable as per the loan agreement and the total amount with interest has gone mounting. Therefore this submission on behalf of the petitioner was also found to be misplaced on facts. 5.2 It was thereafter sought to be heavily emphasized by learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner-loanee is a poor tribal and was entitled to subsidy and that the said amount was not credited by the Bank and the arrears in the loan account was shown. It was the next submission that the petitioner was further entitled to the benefit of Debt Relief (Deva Mafi) Scheme which was introduced by the Government. It was the next submission that the petitioner was further entitled to the benefit of Debt Relief (Deva Mafi) Scheme which was introduced by the Government. On these aspects also, the claim of the petitioner was prima facie not believable as in the affidavit-in-reply while giving the details of two loans and the calculations in respect thereof, quoted hereinabove in tabular form, that the credit was given by the Bank gave details on the aforesaid counts towards debt relief. Whether the petitioner was entitled to credit of a particular amount or amount was credited is again a disputed issue of fact, not liable to be tried in the writ jurisdiction. 5.3 Further submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner that the Bank Officers took away the tractor in his absence, sold the same at the below-market price and credited less amount in the loan account, or that the calculation mentioned in the loan account are not accurate etc. are all in the arena of facts. It was vociferously submitted by pressing all the above aspects that the Bank had committed fraud, and that the amount though not due from the petitioner, is sought to be demanded and recovered. The dispute raised by the petitioner indeed travels into a realm of petitioner's word vis-à-vis the say of the respondent-Bank disputing the case of the petitioner and rebutting the allegations. 5.4 From the above stated facts and contentions as well as the nature of controversy involved, it is clear that the dispute is whether the petitioner has paid up the loan taken from the Bank or not. The loan facility was extended to the petitioner by executing the documents and securing property as mortgage by the respondent Bank. The transaction of loan was in the realm of contract and the rights and obligations of the parties were operated and governed under the contractual arrangement. The contract contemplated various terms and conditions in relation to the extension of the financial assistance and repayment thereof. 6. Whether the Bank's claim for arrears in the loan account is rightful or the say of the petitioner that he has paid up the entire amount is correct, are the questions to be tried on evidence. They necessarily involve the factual inquiry. 6. Whether the Bank's claim for arrears in the loan account is rightful or the say of the petitioner that he has paid up the entire amount is correct, are the questions to be tried on evidence. They necessarily involve the factual inquiry. A dispute about the loan transaction and the controversy whether in such contractual transaction, parties have fulfilled their obligations are manifested in two ways-one that it involve the question of enforcement of contractual obligation; the second is that such dispute becomes factual in nature. Ordinarily therefore, almost in all such cases since factual issues and disputed questions of fact arise from the transaction between the Bank and the loanee in the arena of contract, a writ remedy would not lie. 6.1 In Godavari Sugar Mills v. State of Maharashtra [ (2011) 2 SCC 439 ], the well-known principle was reiterated by the Apex Court that a writ petition is not maintainable to enforce the civil liability arising out of a breach of contract and the remedy which can be properly availed in such cases is institution of Suit. 7. Furthermore, the controversy contains clear disputes of facts. The factual dimensions arising out of allegations and counter-reply by the rival parties become disputed questions of facts. The facts which are sought to be asserted by the petitioner are required to be proved on evidence. They are the matters on the large canvass of factual aspects. A proper remedy would be a Civil Suit where everything on both the sides can be laid threadbare. 7.1 In Orissa Agro Industries Corporation Limited v. Bharti Industries [ (2005) 12 SCC 725 ] the Apex Court stated that whether or not the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would largely depend upon the nature of dispute and if the dispute cannot be resolved without going into the factual controversy, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition. It was stated that the question whether the action of the opposite party in the writ petition amounted to breach of contractual obligation ultimately depends on facts and would require material evidence to be scrutinised and in such a case writ jurisdiction should not be exercised. It was stated that the question whether the action of the opposite party in the writ petition amounted to breach of contractual obligation ultimately depends on facts and would require material evidence to be scrutinised and in such a case writ jurisdiction should not be exercised. In that case the High Court itself has observed that disputed questions of fact were involved, and yet went on to give directions as if it was adjudicating the money claim in the suit. The Supreme Court held that such a course was clearly impermissible. Again in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Kendriya Karmachari Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti [ (2006) 9 SCC 524 ] it was observed by the Apex Court that where the petition raises complex question of fact, the Court should not entertain the petition, 'If there is a question on which there is a serious dispute which cannot be satisfactory decided without taking evidence, it should not be decided in a writ proceedings. If disputed questions of fact arise and the High Court is of the view that those may not be appropriately tried in a writ petition, the High Court has jurisdiction to refuse to try those questions and relegate the party to his normal remedy to obtain redress in a suit....... When the petitioner raises complex questions of fact which may, for their determination, require oral evidence to be taken and on that account, the High Court is of the view that the disputed statement may not be appropriately tried in a writ petition, the High Court should ordinarily decline to try the petition' (Para 12 and 13) 8. The petitioner, if advised, is not precluded to pursue the civil remedies in respect of his grievance. If the petitioner so opts, it is clarified that this judgment will not come in way and shall not have any influencing effect. 9. However, for the reasons and discussion as above, the petition cannot be entertained. None of the prayers made in the petition can be granted in the writ jurisdiction. 10. The petition is required to be dismissed and stands dismissed summarily with no orders as to cost. 11. During the hearing of the present petition, the petitioner's side started harping its case as if a hammer-drill was being played. None of the prayers made in the petition can be granted in the writ jurisdiction. 10. The petition is required to be dismissed and stands dismissed summarily with no orders as to cost. 11. During the hearing of the present petition, the petitioner's side started harping its case as if a hammer-drill was being played. There was an express penchant to disbelieve, demolish and to show a dislike towards the stand as well as the say of the other side. The attributes of intolerance the insistiveness and misplaced anger-were visible. Because of often-adverted acrimonious arguments and unintelligible ways of canvassing contentions, the situation became prone, and virtually plunged into levels farer from the decency desired in a court of law proceedings. For curbing such repeatations, learned advocate Mr. C.H. Vora, present in the Court room was requested to make submissions along with petitioner's learned advocate, for which petitioner's learned advocate fairly consented. On the next date after allowing one more adjournment, learned advocate Mr. Vora with his impassionate but committed submissions, soothened the hot-headed tempers, rescuing and regaining the always-cherished court-decorum. The services of learned advocate Mr. C.H. Vora deserves to be acknowledged and thanked.