KALYANPUR LIME WORKS LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Sasaram, dated 1-6-1950, rejecting a prayer for an ad interim injunction, under the provisions of Order 39, Civil P. C., against the defendants in the action, namely, (1) the State of Bihar and (2) Messrs Dalmia Jain & Company Ltd. The form of the order of injunction which the appellant, plaintiff in the action, asked for was in these terms (I am quoting the prayer portion of the petition for interim injunction): "It is, therefore, prayed that your honour may be pleased to restrain defendant 1 from executing any lease in favour of defendant 2 during the pendency of the suit."

(2.) The facts leading up to the suit and the prayer for interim injunction are these : There is a Hill known as Murli Hill (the upper portion being known as upper Murli Hill and the lower-portion as lower Murli Hill) within the sub division of Sasaram in the district of Shahabad, The Hill contains lime stone etc. On 1-4-1928, the Secretary of State for India (the then competent authority) granted two leases to the Kutchwar Lime and Stone Company Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as Kutchwar) in respect of the two portions of the Hill in question for a period of twenty years, for the purpose of quarrying: lime stone, and converting the same into lime etc. In 1933, Kutchwar went into voluntary liquidation. On 30-9-1933, Kutchwar through their managing agents and liquidators, purport, ed to transfer the leases to one Mr. Bose, subject to the sanction of the Board of Revenue,, but in the meantime appointed Bose as their local agent The Board of Revenue refused to sanction the proposed transfer of the leases. On 25-1-1934, the Kalyanpur Lime Works Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as the appellant) wrote to the Collector of Shahabad and applied for leases in respect of both upper Murli Hill and lower Murli Hill. On 27-3-1934, the Government of Bihar in the Revenue Department appeared to have sanctioned the proposal to forfeit the two leases held by Kutchwar, and on 31-3-1934, the Board of Revenue approved the proposal to grant leases for quarrying lime stone to the appellant. The relevant letter is printed at p. 17 of the paper book, and shows that the proposal to grant leases in favour of the appellant was approved :

(3.) It was alleged in the plaint that the period of the leases in favour of Kutchwar having expired on 31-3-1948, the State of Bihar entered into possession. The appellant then asked the State of Bihar to execute leases in its favour and thus perform the agreement which had been entered into between the appellant and Government in 1934. The State of Bihar did not pay any heed to these requests. A notice was then served under Section 80, Civil P. C. and Dalmias were also served with a notice informing them of the existence of the agreement between the appellant and the State of Bihar. The draft leases which had been agreed to and settled between the parties in 1934, were annexed to the plaint. On these allegations, the appellant sued for specific performance of the contract entered into in 1934. Of the various dates mentioned with reference to the cause of action, the important date was 2-6-1949, when the appellant was informed that the State of Bihar was going to execute leases in favour of Dalmias.