DHOLPUR STONE COMPANY KARAULI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-Firm, a holder of Mining Lease of mineral sand-stone, has filed the present revision petition U/s. 115, CPC against the order dated December 22, 1990 of Additional District Judge, Dholpur, whereby the application filed by it under Order XXIII Rule, 3, C. P. C was dismissed.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, a narration of necessary facts is given. The plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction on October 29, 1980 against the State of Rajasthan and other officers of Mining Department, the non-petitioners in the present revision petition. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the Firm was entitled to get third renewal of the existing mining lease for 10 years from 1. 05. 1980 to 30. 04. 1990, and also permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing it from the lease area of 77. 36 sq. miles situated at Bareli, Tehsil Baseri, District Dholpur.

(3.) MR. B. L. Sharma learned counsel, appearing for the plaintiff-petitioner, in his usual perseverance contended that by a series of correspondence between the parties, there was a final agreement or a concluded contract whereby the entire controversy in the suit has been settled. Counsel argued, that once there is a concluded agreement between the parries and it is found genuine and lawful, the same has to be acted upon and in terms thereof, the suit has to be disposed of. The Court has no option but to record such agreement. On the question whether there was a concluded agreement or not, the learned counsel took me through several order-sheets from the file of the trial court and the letters which were exchanged between the parties. According to the learned counsel, the finding of the trial court that there was no concluded agreement between the parties was perverse and the same was based on mis-reading of documents. It was also urged that the Court erred in drawing an inference from various, order-sheets, that there was no, concluded agreement between the parties and that the plaintiff firm also did not accept at the relevant time that there was a concluded agreement on 27-2-1988.