AANDHI MARBLES PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The applicant-appellant has preferred this civil misc. appeal against the order dated 29.8.2011 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Civil Misc. Application No. 68/2010 whereby the application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was partly allowed and it was ordered that if the appellant deposits the disputed amount within one month from the date of order, the respondent-non-applicants during the pendency of the suit shall neither interfere in the work of mining of the appellant nor auction his property on the basis of demand notice dated 16.9.2009. It was also ordered that if the appellant fails to deposit the required amount within the period of one month as ordered by it, the respondent would be free to proceed according to law.

(2.) The brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the Court below with the averment that regarding mining lease, which has been transferred in favour of the appellant, royalty amount of Rs. 1,09,42,781/- was imposed upon the appellant without giving opportunity of hearing to him on altogether wrong basis and that amount was deposited by the appellant under protest and it was ordered by the competent authority that after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the matter may be reconsidered, but even after the lapse of several years, the matter has not been reconsidered. It was further submitted that although the matter is still pending, a demand notice dated 16.9.2009 was issued and an amount of Rs. 29,41,480/- was demanded as interest on the ground that the royalty amount was deposited by the appellant with a delay. It was prayed by the appellant in the suit that the demand notice dated 16.9.2009 may be declared void and ineffective and permanent injunction may also be issued against the respondents to the effect that the amount of interest is not recoverable from the appellant and they are not entitled to interfere in the mining work of the appellant. Alongwith the suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed praying therein that temporary injunction of the similar nature may be passed during the pendency of the suit. A reply to the application was filed by the respondents. Affidavits and documents were also filed by both the parties. The learned Court below after hearing the respective parties by passing the impugned order only partly allowed the application. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant-appellant is before this Court by way of this appeal.

(3.) The learned Court below although came to a conclusion that prima facie case to this extent is in favour of the appellant that if he deposits the amount of demand notice under protest within a period of one month, the respondents would not interfere in the mining work of the appellant on the basis of demand notice, but the questions regarding balance of convenience and irreparable loss were decided against the appellant by the reason that according to the trial Court the demand is only for a certain amount. Although, two of the points essential for granting temporary injunction were not held in favour of the appellant, even than the application was partly allowed on the ground that to some extent the prima facie case was found in favour of the appellant.