AN AGREEMENT WHICH IS UNCERTAIN AND INDEFINITE CANNOT BE SPECIFICALLY ENFORCED.

VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR, J.

1. This Civil Misc. Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC has been filed against the order dated 28.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kherwara in Civil Misc. Case No. 40/2016.

2. Briefly stated, a suit was filed by the appellant for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction stating that the respondent is holding a mining lease near village Nayagaon, Tehsil Simalwada, District Dungarpur for an area measuring 10,000 square meter, which stands renewed up to 05.02.2022 It was submitted that the respondent made an application before Mining Engineer, Dungarpur and the said mining lease was transferred vide order dated 17.12.2012 and the rider agreement was executed and registered on 19.12.2012 It was stated that the appellant had invested crores of rupees for development of the mining lease area by deploying latest machineries, by raising loans from financial institutions, however, the sanction for transfer of mining lease and rider agreement were canceled by the State Government on the ground that in the various land mining lease could not be transferred without prior permission of the Ministry of Forest, Government of India. It was further stated that the appellant had challenged the aforesaid cancellation by way of writ petition before this Court and this Court has directed for maintaining status quo and the writ petition is pending. It was further stated that since the humble appellant has developed the mining lease area by investing huge money and by deploying machineries, the respondent had executed an agreement dated 15.09.2014 in favour of the appellant to the effect that whatever mineral shall be excavated by respondent shall be sold to the appellant only and to none else. Thus, a concluded contract came to be executed between the parties. In pursuance of the agreement dated 15.09.2014, the respondent handed over the excavated mineral to the appellant and started earning profit, however, in the meantime, due to greed, the respondent started selling the mineral to other parties and when the appellant started watching the activities of the respondent, he started threatening the appellant that he will not sell entire excavated material to him and will not abide by the agreement dated 15.09.2014 It was submitted that the respondent is bound to comply with the terms of the agreement dated 15.09.2014 and in case the respondent does not comply with the terms, the appellant would suffer irreparable injury, which could not be computed in terms of money. It was prayed that during the pendency of the suit, temporary injunction may be granted and that the respondent be restrained from selling the excavated mineral to any person and comply with the terms of the agreement dated 15.09.2014

3. The respondent filed reply to the application for temporary injunction and denied allegations contained in the application for temporary injunction. However, the transfer of mining lease in favour of the humble appellant vide order dated 17.12.2012 was admitted. It was submitted that the writ petition is pending before this Court and the suit is not maintainable. It was also submitted that the agreement dated 15.09.2014 is forged. The respondent also raised the question of jurisdiction of the Court. It was also submitted that the appellant filed an application under Order 8 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC and controverted the allegations contained in the reply filed by the respondent. It was prayed that the humble appellant may be permitted to file rejoinder. A rejoinder was also filed on record by the humble appellant, which was taken on record by the trial court. Certain documents filed by the parties were also taken on record by the trial court.

4. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the trial court, vide its order dated 28.01.2017, rejected the application for temporary injunction of the appellant by observing that none of