Honble JAIN, J.–This is plaintiff-petitioners revision petition under Sec. 115 C.P.C. against the order of Addl. Distt. Judge No. 1, Jodhpur dated 6.8.96 by which the learned Addl.Distt. Judge partly allowed the appeal and modified the interim order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Jodhpur.

(2). The relevant facts are as follows. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for per- manent injunction against the non- petitioners-defendants before the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Jodhpur with the averments that the Mining Deptt. granted mining lease in respect of mine no. 495 and the plaintiff also deposited lease charges upto the period 30.6.97. It as alleged that non- petitioner Smt. Sarda Devi was creating obstruction in the mining operations undertaken by the plaintiff and the plaintiff apprehended dispossession. He, therefore, prayed that the defendant Sarda Devi may be restrained from offering any obstruction or dispossessing him from the said mine. The plaintiff also claimed possession over the said mine. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiff also filed an interlocutory application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

(3). The defendants have so far not filed the written statement, but Sarda Devi, non-petitioner resisted the application. The learned Civil Judge, after hearing both the parties and perusing the documents and material available on the record, felt persuaded to grant temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff in respect of mine no. 495. Non-petitioner Sarda Devi felt aggrieved and preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. Distt. Judge which was partly allowed as aforesaid by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge by the impugned order.

(4). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the non- petitioner Sarda Devi.

(5). It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the learned appellate court is wholly erroneous inasmuch as learned appellate court lost sight of the fact that the lease hs been renewed in favour of the petitioner upto 30.6.97 by an order of the Mining Deptt. dated 27.6.96. He further submitted that under Rules 16 and 31 of the Rajasthan Mining & Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, (for short `the Rules), no transfer of mining lease is permissible unless previous consent in writing of the competent authority of the Mining Deptt. is obtained by the transferee. Since no such prior written permission was produced by non-petitioner Sarda Devi, she cannot be said to have any right, title or interest in respect of the above mine.

(6). Learned counsel for the non-petitioner, Sarda Devi, has submitted that Sarda Devi has already spent a sum of Rs. 60,000/- on the said mine. The petitioner made an agreement for transfer of the lease rights in her favour by written agreement for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Out of the above consideration, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid immediately and the remaining Rs. 50,000/- were to be paid after- wards but before 17.8.96. The non-petitioner, therefore, alleged that the petitioner wanted to defraud the plaintiff of the above money. The non-petitioner also claimed that she is in possession of the above mine. This fact was corroborated by the report of the Commissioner.

(7). I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown me the renewed lease granted in his favour upto the period 30.6.97. The lease was renewed by the authorised authority on 27.6.96. The petitioner is, therefore,lawful lessee of the above mine and under the above Rules he has got the legal right to operate the said mine. The fact that the petitioner allegedly obtained some loan from non-petitioner Sarda Devi has got no relevancy inasmuch as she can only acquire rights over the said mine as a result of transfer if the same is in consonance with the provisions contained in Rules 15 and 31 of the said Rules. It would be pertinent to refer to the relevant portion of the Rules 15 and 31 of the said Rules.

Rule 15 Pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document