Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) ASSAILING impugned order dated 26th of February 2015, appellants have laid this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.'). By the order impugned, the learned Addl. District Judge, Parbatsar, District Nagaur (learned Trial Court), rejected their application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. in a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction.
(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated, the facts are that appellants in the capacity of Legal Representatives of Late Abdul Sattar instituted a civil suit before the learned trial Court claiming the relief of declaration as licence holder of 1/2 of Quarry No. 136/2, Gunawati Range, Makrana. Relief of perpetual injunction is also sought for perpetually restraining the legal representatives of Late Shri Abdul Karim from excavating 1/2 of the aforesaid quarry and to carry out other mining activities. The basis for craving the aforementioned reliefs as set out in the plaint is that at the threshold quarry licence for the aforesaid mine was granted in the joint name of Nanu and Abdul Karim on 3rd of May 1981. It is also averred that the mine in question is a Bapi mine which was regularized and licence was issued converting from rent cum royalty lease. Making serious insinuations against Assistant Mining Engineer, it is pleaded in the plaint that licence was illegally cancelled on 23rd of September 1986 after death of Shri Nanu in the year 1982. The order of cancellation of licence is assailed by Abdul Karim by way of preferring an appeal before Addl. Director (Mines), Udaipur, and on acceptance of the appeal the licence was restored. It is also pleaded in the plaint that though the licence was restored but the Mining Engineer, Makrana illegally deleted the name of Shri Nanu as licencee solely on account of the fact that he is no more. In the same breath, the Mining Engineer has also ordered that names of the legal representatives of Nanu shall be entered as licencee only on production of requisite succession certificate. As per the version of the appellants, in adherence of the directions of the Mining Engineer, they made endeavor for obtaining succession certificate by submitting application before the Court of competent jurisdiction, however, during pendency of the application for succession certificate this Court declared decision reported in, AIR 1981 Raj. page 1 as per incuriam by its authoritative pronouncement in Iqbal Singh's case. In terms of the decision in Iqbal Singh's case, the appellants have made a categorical statement in the plaint that they are laying suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. Staking their claim as licencee of the aforesaid quarry, the appellants have stated in the plaint that being legal representatives of Late Nanu they are still licencee as the rights emanating from licence are heritable. Alongwith the plaint, application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C., was filed wherein it is averred that being legal representatives of Late Nanu, the appellants are still in possession of their share of the mine and are carrying out the excavation activities.
(3.) ATTRIBUTING overtact against the legal representatives of Abdul Karim, 4th respondent, with a specific allegation that they are out and out to dispossess them from their share of the quarry, the appellants craved the relief of temporary injunction for restraining legal representatives of Abdul Karim, 4th respondent, from interfering with their mining activities and further to restrain them from dispossessing the appellants. Besides that, the appellants have also prayed for temporary injunction against respondent No. 1 to 3 to maintain status quo regarding quarry licence till the disposal of the suit.;