SBCMA No.1283/2006 Ratna Ram Vs. State & Ors. 1 SBCMA No.1283/2006 Ratna Ram Vs. State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 19.1.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Rakesh Arora, for the appellant. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant's injunction application was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 23.2.2006, hence, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-plaintiff. On 2.1.2007, this Court passed interim order to maintain the status quo. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is authorized by the lease holder Radhaswami Trust to operate and excavate the mineral for the mine in question. The Radhaswami Trust's mine was cancelled by the Mining Department, against which, Radhaswami Trust filed the suit against the Mining Department, which was registered as Civil Original Suit No.41/2000 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Parbatsar, which was decreed by the trial court on 1.6.2001 and in view of the above, the respondent cannot dispute that the mine in question is the SBCMA No.1283/2006 Ratna Ram Vs. State & Ors. 2 lease hold mine of M/s. Radhaswami Trust. It is also submitted that Radhaswami Trust is not objecting to the appellant's mining operation because they themselves have authorized the appellant-plaintiff to excavate the mineral. The court below has rejected the appellant's application after observing that the applicant-appellant is claiming himself to be the partner for the mining operation for mine in question and he stated that he has been authorized by the Radhaswami Trust through its power of attorney Pratap Chand. According to court below from the alleged power of attorney Pratap Chand it is not proved that the plaintiff has been authorized properly by the trust to conduct the mining operation in the mine in question. The trial court also considered the reply to the notice of the Mining Department given by the said power of attorney Shri Pratap Chand wherein he stated that crane is lying on the southern side of the mine and they have not put any crane in the northern and eastern side and the crane which is lying outside the boundary of the mine in dispute is not belonging to them. It appears from the facts mentioned in the impugned SBCMA No.1283/2006 Ratna Ram Vs. State & Ors. 3 order, the reasons given by the court below that court below has considered the facts and the relevant documents and, thereafter, found that the plaintiff is not entitled to injunction relief. Since it is a matter relating to excavation of the mine in question, therefore also, there is need of having strong prima facie case in view of the reasons that after injunction permitting the appellant to excavate the mine is granted then by the time of the decision of the suit he may excavate huge quantity of mineral from the mine, which cannot be countenanced for. Since it is an interim order passed by this Court running since 2.1.2007, therefore, the interest of justice will be served by protecting both the parties right by maintaining the order dated 2.1.2007 by exercise of inherent power by this Court and, therefore, this appeal is disposed of with the direction to both the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the land in question till the decision of the suit. The trial court is requested to decide the suit expeditiously. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-