Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Abdul Rahim vs Firm M/S Khatri Marble Mines Makrana ... on 30 May, 2024
Author: Madan Gopal Vyas
Bench: Madan Gopal Vyas
[2024:RJ-JD:25106]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1776/2024
1. Abdul Rahim S/o Abdul Hakim, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Near
Dhaula Kuan Masjid, Makrana, Distt. Nagaur (Raj.)
2. Khurshida W/o Mohd. Hanif Choudhary, Aged About 63 Years,
Azam Ali Gali, Station Road, Makrana, Distt. Deedwana-
Kuchaman (Raj.)
----Appellants
Versus
1. Firm M/s Khatri Marble Mines Makrana, Through Partner
Khurshid Ahmed S/o Haji Mohd, Aged 68 Years, R/o Makrana,
Distt. Didwana Kuchaman (Raj.).
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Distt. Collector, Deedwana-
Kuchaman.
3. Director, Mines And Geology Department, Udaipur.
4. Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Makrana.
5. Anwar Ahmed S/o Abdul Karim Gajdhar, R/o Near Chamanpura
Meenara Masjid, Makrana, Distt. Didwana Kuchaman (Raj.)
6. Irshad Ali S/o Abdul Karim Gajdhar, R/o Near Ehle Hadis
Masjid, Makrana, Distt. Didwana Kuchaman (Raj.)
7. Shahnaz Begum W/o Abdul Rahim Gajdhar, Through Her Lrs-
8. Shahrukh Khan S/o Abdul Rahim Gajdhar, R/o Near Ehle Hadis
Masjid, Makrana, Distt. Didwana Kuchaman (Raj.)
9. Shahbaz Khan S/o Abdul Rahim Gajdhar, R/o Near Ehle Hadis
Masjid, Makrana, Distt. Didwana Kuchaman (Raj.)
10. Mohd. Suhail S/o Abdul Rahim Gajdhar, R/o Near Ehle Hadis
Masjid, Makrana, Distt. Didwana Kuchaman (Raj.)
11. Gulfashah D/o Abdul Rahim Gajdhar, R/o Near Ehle Hadis
Masjid, Makrana, Distt. Didwana Kuchaman (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R. K. Thanvi, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. D. L. R. Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. Chandraveer Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Judgment
30/05/2024
The present civil misc. appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 read
with Section 151 of CPC has been preferred by the defendants-
appellants against the order dated 04.04.2024 passed by learned
Additional District Judge, Makrana, District Nagaur (hereinafter
[2024:RJ-JD:25106] (2 of 5) [CMA-1776/2024]
referred as the 'learned trial court') in Civil Misc. Case No.35/2024
whereby the learned trial court has granted ad-interim injunction
order in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 herein.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1
herein preferred a suit before the learned trial court seeking
specific performance of contract and permanent injunction. It was
stated in the suit that he is the licensee of mine No.147 situated
at Gunawati Range ad measuring 126x200 ft.. It was further
submitted that there is no demarcation of boundaries of the said
mine and the defendants who have their mines adjacent to his
mine are taking advantage of this situation and they are illegally
excavating stones from the mine. Along with the suit an
application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was preferred by the
plaintiff-respondent No.1.
3. Learned trial court vide order dated 04.04.2024 passed ad-
interim order in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 whereby it
was directed that till the demarcation of the boundary of mines
No.147, 146, 136/1 & 136/2 is made by the Mines Department,
the mines are restrained from carrying on mining activities in their
respective mines.
4. Challenging the said ad-interim order dated 04.04.2024,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant submits
that in another suit preferred by the defendant-appellant, the
learned trial court passed ad interim order dated 01.03.2024
whereby it was ordered that the defendants are restrained from
interfering with the mining activity of the appellant with respect to
mine No. 136/1 Gunawati Range, Makrana and the defendants in
the said suit were also directed to not to cancel the quarry license
[2024:RJ-JD:25106] (3 of 5) [CMA-1776/2024]
of the appellant. It is submitted that by way of passing impugned
order dated 04.04.2024, the learned trial court has passed an ad-
interim order over the ad-interim order whereby it was directed
that the defendant-appellant shall not do mining activities in his
mine bearing No.136/1, Gunawati Range, Makrana.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that pursuant to the ad-
interim order dated 1.3.2024 passed by the learned trial court, the
mining activities in Mine No.136/1 Gunawati Range, Makaran is
going on. Hence, it is prayed that the present appeal may be
allowed and impugned order may be quashed and set aside.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and
submits that the learned trial court has rightly passed the order
impugned and no interference is called for.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
8. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to quote both ad-
interim orders dated 01.03.2024 & 04.04.2024 passed by learned
trial Court in juxta position.
Order dated 01.03.2024 Order dated 04.04.2024
vr% vizkFkhZx.k dks vkxkeh is'kh rd ikcan ;fn rc rd fdlh Hkh [kku/kkjh dks ml
fd;k tkrk gS fd os izkFkhZx.k dks muds {ks= esa [kuu dk;Z djus dh vuqefr nh
[kku la[;k 136@1 xq.kkorh jsat edjkuk xbZ rks og mfpr ugha gksxk bl lanHkZ esa
ds Lohd`r'kqnk {ks= esa [kuu dk;Z djus ls [kfut foHkkx dks i`Fkd ls i= fy[kk
u jksdsa rFkk izkFkhZx.k ds Dosjh ykbZlsal dks tk,a ftlds vk/kkj ij [kkuksa dh orZeku
fujLr u djsaA fLFkfr o muds lhekadu ds fn'kk funsZ'k
fn, tk,a rc rd [kku la[;k 147] 146]
136@1 o 136@2 ds [kku/kkjh viuh
[kkuksa esa [kuu dk;Z uk djsaA
9. A perusal of both the orders makes it clear that on one hand,
vide ad-interim order dated 01.03.2024, the learned trial court
granted permission to the present defendant-appellant to do
[2024:RJ-JD:25106] (4 of 5) [CMA-1776/2024]
mining activities in his mine No.136/1, Gunawati Range, Makrana
and restrained the Mining Department from canceling the quarry
license. On the other hand, vide impugned order dated
04.04.2024, the learned trial court held that unless boundaries are
demarcated, it would not be just and proper to allow any licensee
to do mining activities. Learned trial Court further directed to write
a letter to the Mining Department to do demarcation of the
boundaries of the Mines and till the demarcation work is done, the
licensee of mines No.147, 146, 136/1 & 136/2 were restrained
from doing mining activities in the said mines.
10. In view of the above, it is clear that while passing the order
impugned, the defendant-appellant has also been restrained from
doing mining activities whereas the learned trial court itself vide
ad-interim order dated 01.03.2024 granted permission to the
defendant-appellant to do mining activities. Even the mining
Department has been restrained from canceling his quarry license.
Thus, it is clear that not only the learned trial court has passed
contradictory order but also passed ad-interim order over the ad-
interim order passed by itself.
11. Thus, this Court finds that the impugned order passed by the
learned trial court is wholly without application of mind. The
learned trial court cannot stay the effect and operation of its own
ad-interim injunction order in another proceeding pending before
it.
12. Consequently, the present civil misc. appeal is allowed. The
impugned order dated 04.04.2024 passed by learned Additional
District Judge, Makrana, District Nagaur in Civil Misc. Case
No.35/2024 is quashed and set aside.
[2024:RJ-JD:25106] (5 of 5) [CMA-1776/2024]
13. A perusal of the record transpires that in both the suits (1)
preferred by the appellant (2) preferred by the respondent, the
applications under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC bearing No.16/2024
and 35/2024 respectively are still pending and only ad-interim
orders have been passed. Therefore, learned trial court is directed
to decide both the applications finally on or before 16.7.2024.
14. Till then, status quo, as it exists today, with respect to the
mines in question shall be maintained.
15. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.
16. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court by E-mail
or Fax.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J
340-nidhi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
