M/S GOVERDHAN MAHARAJ & COMPANY Vs. RATTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners filed a suit against the respondent for permanent injunction alleging that the respondent had sold lease rights in the mine in question existing on plot No. 9 and handed over its possession to them by virtue of a compromise dated July 19, 1990 recorded in Civil Suit No. 447 of 1989 and that the defendant started interfering in the operation of the mine and threatened to dispossess them. Along with the suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed. The trial Court by order dated August 6, 1992 restrained the respondent from interfering in the operation of the mine in question except in due course of law. The respondent aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the trial Court filed appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code. Learned appellate Court by order dated September 5, 1992 disposed of the appeal and directed the parties to maintain status quo about the mine in question till the disposal of the suit, by observing that it could not be said definitely as to who was in actual possession of the mine in question and that it was the respondent who was legally in possession of the same and that he will suffer irreparable loss in case the stay order, as granted by the trial Court, was allowed to continue. It is against this order of the appellate Court, the petitioners plaintiffs have filed the present revision under Section 151 of the Code.

(2.) Before deciding the controversy raised herein, it would be worthwhile to recapitulate the back-ground of the dispute between the parties. Lease hold rights in respect of plot No. 9 were granted by the State Government in favour of the respondent on December 20, 1985. Later on, on May 12, 1983 the parties to the lis entered into partnership and decided to carry on mining business sharing the profits and losses on 50 :50 basis. Some differences having arisen between the parties, petitioner Ranbir filed a suit against the respondent being 447 of 1989 which was disposed of in view of a compromise arrived at between the parties. Accordingly, the value of lease hold rights was settled at rupees six lacs and a sum of rupees three lacs was paid by the petitioner to the respondent and the balance amount of three lacs was agreed to be paid on transfer of lease. Since the lease was not transferred, the balance amount remained unpaid to the respondent. It is not disputed by any of the parties that the respondent did take steps to get the lease transferred in favour of the petitioners and his request having been declined by the State Government, revision in that behalf is pending decision before the Central Government. This is how the petitioners filed the present suit in the year 1992.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were in possession of the lease in term of compromise arrived at between the parties in civil suit No. 447 of 1989, by virtue of which a sum of Rs. three lacs had been paid to the respondent, therefore, the appellate Court was no justified in concluding that "it cannot be said definitely as to who is in actual possession of the mine in question". It is true that the respondent is a lessee of the mine but in view of compromise arrived at between the parties, the petitioners are clearly shown to be in possession of the mine and for that purpose they have already paid rupees three lacs to the respondent, rupees two lacs by means of a demand draft and rupees one lac is cash, which payment could not be disputed even before me by the counsel for the respondent. Thus, it clearly stands established that the petitioners are in actual physical possession of the mine though the legal possession thereof is with the respondent. The respondent in the grab of this situation cannot interfere in the possession of the petitioners except in due course of law. The factum of the parties entering into a compromise or partnership could also not be disputed before me by the counsel for the respondent. In these circumstances, order of maintaining status quo about the possession of the mine.