By the Court.—Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri R.C. Yadav, Sri Alok Kumar Singh, Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, Sri Lokendra Kumar, learned Standing counsels. None appeared on behalf of the respondent though, the appeal has been called twice. In these circumstances, we have proceeded to hear and decide this appeal, ex parte.

2. This is a defendant’s appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arisen from the judgment and decree dated 2.7.1979 passed by Sri Ghanshyam Pandey, Civil Judge/Judge Small Causes at Allahabad in Original Suit No. 107 of 1969, whereby he had decreed the suit with cost in the following manner :

“Defendants are restrained from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the enjoyment and possession of the plaintiff over the land and mines held by her in pursuance of lease dated and as granted by the lease-deeds dated 16.4.47 and 27.4.59 and also of all the minerals extracted from mines from the areas covered by said leases. Defendants are further restrained from inviting or accepting applications and considering or granting any mining lease for any mineral covered under the mining lease held by plaintiff for the area or any part or portion thereof which is mentioned in aforesaid plaintiff’s lease-deeds dated 16.4.47 and 27.4.59 so long as the subsisting lease in favour of plaintiff is in force and is not otherwise terminated or cancelled by any Court of law of competent jurisdiction or in accordance with law. Defendants also cannot demand or realise the sum of rupees nine lacs forty thousand two hundred thirty five and paise five (940235.5 p.)as royalty for the period from 1.1.52 to 26.6.68, from plaintiff as claimed by them other than royalty stipulated in plaintiff’s lease-deed dated 16.4.47 and 27.4.59 till these leases are subsisting and are not cancelled or amended in accordance with law. It is also declared that the impugned order dated 31.5.68 and all subsequent orders etc. flowing there from in any manner directing that a clearance certificate from D.M./Collector is necessary before booking and transfer of silica sand situated within the district of Allahabad is void illegal and without jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s suit for damages and also pendentelite and future damages is dismissed with cost. It is also made clear that defendants and all their servants, agent and subordinates will not hold out threat of criminal prosecution against plaintiff for alleged illegal mining of silica sand till her lease-deeds are subsisting and are not terminated, modified or cancelled by any law or competent Court and plaintiff does not act centrary to any relevant law and also against the terms of lease.”

3. Original Suit No. 107 of 1969 was filed by Smt. Rani Rajendri Kumari Ba, w/o- Maharao Raja Kamlakar Singh, R/o- Sankargarh, Tehsil Karchhana, District Allahabad, impleading State of U.P. through Secretary, Industries and Union of India, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff-respondent) as defendants. Plaintiff initially impleaded only State of U.P. as sole defendant but subsequently made amendment by impleading Union of India as defendant No. 2 vide Court’s order dated 24.9.1969. The plaintiff - respondent claimed following reliefs :

“(a) by prohibiting the defendants and all their servants, agents and subordinates by a permanent prohibiting injunction directing the defendants by themselves and through their officers and agents not to hold out threats of criminal prosecution against the plaintiff alleging that the plaintiff will be prosecuted and proceeded criminally for the alleged illegal mining silica sand from the area under lease of the plaintiff. (Valued at Rs. 2,000/-).

(b) by restraining the Government of U.P. and the Union of India by issue of a permanent prohibitory injunction prohibiting them from interfering in any manner whatso