BIRAT CHANDRA DAGARA Vs. TAURIAN EXIM PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 17 5 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rairangpur in I A No 12 of 2003 restraining the appellant from managing, operating raising, extracting Iron Ores from Sulerpat Mines and from interfering with the man agement, operation, raising, extraction of iron ores from the said mines in terms of Power of Attorney dated 9-7-2002 till disposal of the suit

(2.) Respondents have filed Civil suit No 38 of 2003 in the Court of the learned civil Judge (Senior Division), praying for a declaration that the deed of revocation dated 16-7-2002 is void, illegal and inoperative and for further declaration that in view of the registered Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 9-7-2002 executed by the sole defendant in favour of the plaintiff No 1 and Against older of D K Patnaik, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rairangpur, D/ 17-5-2003 backed by payments as indicated in the plaint, the plaintiff respondents are entitled to operate the suit schedule mine as described in Schedule-A and for permanent injunction In the said suit an application under Order 39 Rule 1 C P C was tiled by the respondents tor restraining the appellant from managing, operating, raising or extracting iron ore from the said mines and also to restrain the appellant from interfering with the management operation raising or extraction ol Iron Ores from the said mines Said application filed by the respon dents having been allowed, the present ap peal has been preterred by the defendant

(3.) Case ot the plaintiffs respondents is that the defendant appellant had been granted mining lease in respect ot Suleipat Iron Ore Mine covering an area of 1527 10 acres or 618 Hectares for the purpose of mining Said defendant-appellant was not able to operate the mine for want of technical know-how paucity of funds and as such persuaded the plaintiff respondents to advance a sum of rupees ninety eight lakhs and operate the mine under an Irrevocable Power ot Attorney The plaintiff respondents agreed to the suggestion and the defendant appellant also agreed that in lieu of advance he shall execute an irrevocable Power of At torney in lavour of the plaintiff No 1- Com pany and alternatively suggested that he is ready and willing to transfer permanently his leasehold right in respect of Schedule A mine after obtaining due permission from the authority and that during the interregnum period, i e from the date of advancement/execution of In evocable Power Attor ney till the date of execution and registration of final document of transter, the absolute right to manage, operate the Mine in question raise, transport and sale the ore shall rest with the plaintiffs on the basis of the Irrevocable Power of Attorney The Plain tills respondents accepted such suggestion of the deiendant appellant and accordingly advanced a sum of rupees seventy six lakhs in between 21 6-2002 and 2G 7-2002 Apart from the above amount the plamtifi respondents also paid Rs 22 lakhs in cash on dii- ferent dates making it total amount ot Rs 98 00 lakhs in total The defendant ap pellant in due procedure ot law executed a general Irrevocable Power of Attorney and registered the same on 9 7 2002 Under the terms of the said Power of Attorney the plain tiffs respondents were to take possession, manage works, raise, dispatch and sell minerals from the said mine. However, after receipt of the aforesaid amount and execution of the Irrevocable Power of Attorney suddenly the defendant appellant revoked the Power of Attorney on 16-7-2002. Challenging the said revocation a suit was filed for the relief as stated earlier.