1 S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.52/2005. Smt. Indra Devi. vs. The State of Rajasthan and another. Date : 16.3.2007 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. DD Thanvi, for the appellant. - - - - - Heard. The plaintiff/appellant is aggrieved against the concurrent finding of fact recorded by two courts below in judgments and decrees dated 11.5.2000 and 26.10.2004 by which the trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit and the appellate court dismissed the regular first appeal of the plaintiff. It appears that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction claiming that she was allotted a mining lease by issuing a mining patta on 10.3.1992. According to the plaintiff, the Deputy Secretary, Mines by order dated 24.10.1994 cancelled the said lease. The plaintiff, therefore, filed suit for declaration that her lease for the land in question may be declared valid and the defendant no.2 may be 2 restrained from taking possession of the mine on the basis of order which has been issued by the defendant no.2. The trial court, after considering the evidence of the plaintiff's power of attorney held that the plaintiff's power of attorney has not uttered a single word about not giving opportunity of hearing by the Deputy Secretary, Mines before passing the order of cancellation. Not only this, the plaintiff's power of attorney produced copies of two letters dated 28.4.1993 and 8.5.1993, which according to the plaintiff's power of attorney, was sent to the Deputy Secretary, Mines hearing the matter for adjourning the matter whereas the impugned order was passed by the Deputy Secretary on 24.10.1994. Not only this, the court below observed that the mining lease was granted in favour of the plaintiff on 10.3.1992 when the higher authority already passed stay against granting any mining lease for the land in question. It will be worthwhile to mention here that the appellant himself filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC before this Court and placed on record the copy of said stay order which was dated 5.3.1992. From this document itself, it is clear that the stay order was in force upto next date i.e. upto 11.3.1992 and admittedly, the lease was granted to the plaintiff on 3 10.3.1992. In view of the above, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Accordingly, this second appeal, having no merit, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya