K. S. SIDHU, J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal from a judgment and decree of the District Judge, Jaipur City, made on September 19, 1980, whereby that learned judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs.
(2.) THE suit which was dismissed as aforesaid was brought by Lucky Minmate Private Ltd. , through its Managing Director, Vishnu Kumar Modi (hereafter called the plaintiff) against the State of Rajasthan (hereafter called the defendant) for a declaration to the effect that the notice dated, March 4, 1978, issued by the defendant to the plaintiff is illegal and void, and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from realising from the plaintiff any amount by way of prospecting charges and from cancelling the mining lease granted to the plaintiff earlier. The facts about which there is no dispute between the parties may be stated like this. On June 5, 1976, the defendant granted a mining lease for limestone and marble near village Rampura, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Siker in favour of M/s Modi Mineral Grinding Mills Pvt. Ltd. in accordance with the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, for a period of 10 years on the terms and conditions contained in the lease deed executed by the lessor and the lessee on June 10, 1976, and registered on June 12, 1976. The lessee transferred the lease-hold rights to the plaintiff on November 12, 1976. By an order dated, November 11, 1976, the defendant approved the said transfer subject to the condition inter alia that the plaintiff shall furnish an undertaking in writing that, he will pay the prospecting charges of the area as per special conditions in the original lease The plaintiff gave the requisite undertaking in writing to the effect that "he would pay proportionate prospecting charges as and when decided by the Director Mines and Geology for the area" allotted to the plaintiff. On December 22, 1976, the defendant sent a letter to the plaintiff calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs. 1, 45, 766. 63 on account of prospecting charges as per detailed statement annexed to the letter. On a representation made to the Government in that behalf, the Deputy Secretary to the Government addressed a letter, dated, March 22, 1977. to the Mining Department requesting it to suspend the proceedings of recovery of the aforesaid amount till June, 1981. About a year later, to be precise, on March 4, 1978, the Mining Department of the defendant gave the impugned notice to the plaintiff. calling upon him once again to pay the amount of Rs 1, 45, 766 63 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of that notice by him on point of facing the proceedings for the cancellation of the mining lease. The plaintiff filed the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, challenging the validity of the notice, dated, March 4, 1978, on the grounds that it was issued in contravention of the Government's own letter, dated, March 22, 1977. aforementioned, and without giving the plaintiff an opportunity of being heard and that the impugned notice also contravened the relevant mining rules. The plaintiff also questioned the correctness of the amount worked out by the Mining Department as prospecting charges due from the plaintiff. It was on these averments that the plaintiff filed this suit for a declaration and perpetual injunction as mentioned above in the second paragraph of this judgment. The defendant contested the suit and filed a detailed written statement in answer to it. Explaining the demand by it of Rs. 1, 45, 766. 63 from the plaintiff it pleaded that it had already incurred an expenditure of Rs. 46,707. 07 departmentally towards prospecting the area leased out to the plaintiff and that, in addition, it had to pay a sum of Rs. 99, 059. 56 to M/s Associated Cement Company as proportionate prospecting charges for this area. It also pleaded that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action for the relief of declaration and perpetual injunction as prayed.
(3.) FROM the pleadings of the parties, the trial court stated the following issues : (1) Whether the notice, dated March 3, 1978, issued to the plaintiff by the State Government is illegal and void ? O. P. P. (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from realising from the plaintiff the amount of Rs. 1,45,766. 63 and from cancelling the mining lease ? O. P. P. (3) Whether the impugned notice does not give rise to any cause of action to sustain the present suit and the same is therefore not maintainable ? O. P. D. (4) Whether the court-fees paid by the plaintiff is insufficient ? O. P. D. (5) Relief ? These issues were framed on October, 12, 1979. Before the framing of the issues, the plaintiff had already been granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from enforcing the recovery of the amount in dispute and from cancelling the mining lease during the pendency of the suit. The case was set down for recording the plaintiff's evidence on January 4, 1980. The plaintiff failed to appear that day with the result that the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff appeared on a subsequent date and made an application for setting the dismissal aside. By its order, dated, January 17, 1981, the court allowed the said application, set the dismissal aside and restored the suit to its original number. The plaintiff was given another opportunity of producing his evidence and the hearing in the suit was adjourned to February 27, 1980, for that purpose. The plaintiff did not produce any evidence on February 27. He himself was not in attendance in the court. His lawyer requested for adjournment of the hearing without giving any valid ground for such adjournment. The court took a lenient view of this default by reason of an undertaking given by counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff would obtain the 'dasti' summons to the witnesses and that he would not request for further adjournment even if the witnesses should not have been served. On April 17, 1980, to which the case was adjourned, the witnesses summoned, and, as usual, the plaintiff himself, were not in attendance. One of the two witnesses for whom the plaintiff had obtained "dasti" summons failed to appear inspite of service. The court ordered proceedings to be taken against him under O. 16, Rule 10 C. P. C. and further directed that if the plaintiff was still desirous of producing him as a witness he might got a warrant issued to compel his appearance. The other witness, who had not been served, was ordered to be summoned in the ordinary manner. The case was adjourned to July 16,1980. On that hearing, one of the witnesses summoned, turned up, but the plaintiff's counsel stated that his evidence is unnecessary and that he may be discharged without recording his evidence He was discharged as desired. The other witness was not in attendance. In fact, the plaintiff had not got any process issued against him in compliance with the court's order dated, April 17, 1980. As usual, the plaintiff was not in attendance at this hearing either. The court took an over-indulgent view of the conduct of the plaintiff and adjourned the hearing in the suit to September 19, 1980, on the plaintiff's counsel's undertaking that the entire evidence would be produced on the even date at the plaintiff's own responsibility. No evidence was produced on September 19. The plaintiff did not care to attend the court that day. The court concluded from the aforementioned conduct of the plaintiff, extending over a period of nearly a year, that he was not interested in producing any evidence in the case. It seems that the plaintiff, who had already obtained a temporary injunction in the suit, knew it too well that his claim in the suit was wholly groundless and that the best course for him was to prolong the proceedings in the suit and, in the meantime, to enjoy the usufruct of the mining lease without praying a penny out of the amount which he had agreed to pay to the Government to reimburse it on account of the prospecting expenditure which it had already incurred departmentally and had paid to M/s Associated Cement Company to wards the prospecting charges of the leasehold area let out to the plaintiff. The trial court closed the plaintiff's case and proceeded to decide the suit forthwith in accordance with the provisions of Order 17 Rule 3 C. P. C. It recorded a very brief judgment stating that since the onus of proof of issues 1 and 2 was placed on the plaintiff and since he had not discharged that onus both the issues were being decided against the plaintiff Consequently it dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs to the defendant. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated September 19, 1980, mentioned above, the plaintiff presented this appeal to this Court on December 12,1980. He also succeeded in obtaining a temporary injunction against the defendant from this court on February 27, 1981. The said injunction was vacated by the court on July 24, 1981. The appeal was ordered to be fixed for hearing on the question of admission immediately. Arguments on both sides were heard on July 28 and 29. Judgment was reserved to be pronounced on some future day. ;