Amanaram vs Hanumanram
2021 Latest Caselaw 8215 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 8215 Raj
Judgement Date : 25 March, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Amanaram vs Hanumanram on 25 March, 2021

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

(1 of 3) [CMA-272/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 272/2021

Amanaram S/o Hajariram, Aged About 57 Years, Nimbi Jodha, Tehsil Ladanu, Dis. Nagaur

----Appellant Versus

1. Hanumanram S/o Magharam, Pani Ki Tanki Ke Pass, Khan Kenimbi Jodha, Tehsil Ladanu, Dis. Nagaur

2. Balluram S/o Hanumanram, Pani Ki Tanki Ke Pass, Khan Ke Samne, Nimbi Jodha, Tehsil Ladanu, Dis. Nagaur

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. J.K. Bhaiya For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

25/03/2021

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment

dated 03.03.2021 passed by the learned District Judge,

Deedwana, District Nagaur in Civil Appeal Order No. 03/2021. Vide

order dated 03.03.2021, the appellate court allowed the appeal

preferred by the respondents and remanded the matter back to

the trial court to decide the issue pending before it.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that while

remanding back the matter, the appellate court though gave the

direction to decide the matter afresh, but no order for maintaining

the status quo of the mining activities was passed. Therefore, in

pursuance of the order passed by the appellate court, the matter

may be remanded back to the trial court but till the application

under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC is decided, both the parties may

(2 of 3) [CMA-272/2021]

be directed to maintain the status quo with respect to the mining

operations of query No. 64/08.

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to

controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

appellant, however, he submits that the learned trial court may be

directed to decide the application pending before it under Order 39

Rule 1 and 2 CPC within a fixed period of time.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have

gone through the findings recorded by the appellate court.

Learned Appellate Court has decided the appeal of the

appellants in the following terms :-

"7- geus fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k ds ijLij fojks/kh rdksaZ ij euu fd;k o vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA gLrxr izdj.k esa ;g rF; fufoZokfnr gS fd oknxzLr [kuu yht la0 [email protected] izR;FkhZ vekukjke ds uke jftLVMZ gSA ;g rF; Hkh fufoZokfnr gS fd mDr [kuu yht dk fnukad 13-10-2008 dks [kuu foHkkx] ukxkSj }kjk vekukjke ds uke yht MhM tkjh fd;k x;kA ;g rF; Hkh fufoZokfnr gS fd mDr [kuu yht ,oa fuEch tks/kka esa jdck 06 chxk 04 fcLok Hkwfe ds ckcr tkjh dh xbZA ;g rF; Hkh fufoZokfnr gS fd oknxzLr [kuu yht la0 [email protected] ds ikl vihykFkhZ guqekujke dh Hkwfe gS ftl ij vihykFkhZ ds uke [kuu yht la0 [email protected] tkjh gks j[kh gS vkSj ;g Hkh rF; Hkh fufoZokfnr gS fd oknxzLr [kuu yht la0 [email protected] tkjh djokus ds ckcr vihykFkhZ vuqekujke us viuh 03 chxk 03 fcLok Hkwfe izR;FkhZ dks nhA lgefri= dh izdfr ds voyksdu ls Li'V gS fd vihykFkhZ guqekujke us izR;FkhZ vekukjke dks :i;s [email protected]& ds cnys vius LokfeRo dh jdck 03 chxk 03 fcLok Hkwfe fnukad 01-09-2008 dks vxys 20 o'kZ rd [kuu dk;Z [email protected] izkIr djus gsrq vUrfjr dj nh o dCtk Hkh lqiqnZ dj fn;kA lk>ki= dh izfr ds voyksdu ls Li'V gS fd oknxzLr [kuu yht la0 [email protected] esa vihykFkhZ guqekujke ds iq= cyqjke rFkk izR;FkhZ vekukjke ds chp oknxzLr [kuu yht dh Hkwfe esa [kuu dk;Z ls gksus okys ykHk gkfu esa [email protected]&[email protected] fgLls ds vf/kdkjh gksuk r; fd;k x;kA lk>ki= ds fujLrhdj.k gsrq tkjh uksfVl ds voyksdu ls izdV gS fd vekukjke }kjk mDr lk>ki= dks fujLr djus dk vk"k; cYyqjke dk izsf'kr dj fn;kA vFkkZr ftl lk>ki= ds vk/kkj ij vihykFkhZ oknxzLr [kuu yht la0 [email protected] esa viuk vk/kk fgLlk gksuk crkrk gS mlh lk>ki= dks fujLr djus dk fof/kd uksfVl vihykFkhZ dks izsf'kr fd;k tk pqdk gSA mijksDr rF;kRed fLFkfr ds ckotwn fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us izFke n`'V;k ekeyk ds fcUnq ij lk{; dk foospu djrs gq, nksuksa i{kksa ds i{k esa izFke n`'V;k ekeyk ds fcUnq ij lk{; dk foospu djrs gq, nksuksa i{kksa ds i{k esa izFke n`'V;k ekeyk lkfcr gksuk ekukA gekjs fouez erkuqlkj mDr fu'd'kZ rF;ksa o fof/k ds vuq:i ugha gSA fo"ks'kdj ml ifjfLFkfr esa tc jftLVMZ lgefr i= u rks vihykFkhZx.k }kjk foMªkW fd;k x;k vkSj u gh mldh vLohd`fr dh xbZA nwljh rjQ vihykFkhZx.k o izR;FkhZ vFkkZr~ oknh o izfroknh nksuksa ds i{kksa esa izFke n`'V;k ekeyk ekurs gq, fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us lqfo/kk dk larqyu o viw.kZuh; {kfr dk fcUnq izR;[email protected] vekukjke ds i{k esa fu.khZr fd;k o vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr dkmaVj vLFkkbZ fu'ks/kkKk izkFkZuki= vLohdkj dj fn;kA ,slh fLFkfr esa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk izFke n`'V;k ekeyk] lqfo/kk dk larqyu o viw.kZuh; {kfr ds

(3 of 3) [CMA-272/2021]

fcUnqvksa ij fn;k x;k fu'd'kZ izdj.k ds rF;ksa o fof/k ds vuq:i ugha gS vkSj vikLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA

8- ifj.kker% vihykFkhZx.k&1&guqekujke iq= ek/kkjke mez 69 o'kZ o 2&cYyqjke iq= guqekujke mez 47 o'kZ fuoklhx.k ikuh dh Vadh ds ikl] [kku ds lkeus fuEch tks/kka rglhy ykMuwa ftyk ukxkSj] jkt0 dh vksj ls izLrqr gLrxr vihy fo:) izR;FkhZ vekukjke vkaf"kd :i ls Lohdkj dh tkrh gS ,oa fo}ku~ fopkj.k U;k;ky; flfoy U;k;k/kh"k] ykMuwa }kjk nhokuh fofo/k izdj.k la- [email protected] vekukjke cuke guqekujke oxSjk esa ikfjr vkns"k fnukad 10-02- 2021 dks vikLr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa i=koyh bl funsZ"k ds lkFk izfrizsf'kr dh tkrh gS fd gLrxr vkns"k dh jks"kuh esa mHk; i{k dks lqudj fof/k vuqlkj uohu vkns"k ikfjr djsA"

The dispute with respect to the mining activities in mining

lease No. 64/08 is pending consideration before the learned trial

court and both the parties are claiming the mining rights of the

mine in question.

Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the ends of justice

will be met, if both the parties are directed to maintain the status

quo with respect to the mining activities in the mining lease No.

64/08 till the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC is

decided by the trial court in pursuance of the remand order dated

03.03.2021. It is also directed that the trial court shall decide the

application pending under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC as

expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month

from the date receipt of a certified copy of this order.

It is needless to point out at this stage that while deciding

the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, the counter

claim preferred by the respondents shall also be decided.