IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH (20TH) DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5904 of 2010 Between: Alle Chandrasekhar … Petitioner And: Jinka Ramanjaneyulu … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5904 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 05.10.2010 in CMA No.4 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial, wherein the said appeal filed by the respondent herein-defendant was allowed, setting aside the order dated 07.05.2010 in IA No.186 of 2010 in OS No.36 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed suit against the respondent/ defendant for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the quarry business in the plaint schedule area. According to the plaintiff, he came into possession of the quarry area under an agreement dated 31.12.2009 executed between himself and the defendant and that he paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant towards royalty and taxes payable to the Government and also paid Rs.60,000/- to the mason E.Srinivas as advance and also he paid Rs.2,00,000/- to M/s Sri Hanuman Earth Movers for supply of procaine, compressor and other machinery. The plaintiff alleges that having executed the agreement dated 31.12.2009, the defendant with a view to get more profit is negotiating with others so as to induct them into possession and evict the plaintiff and so, he filed suit for permanent injunction. He also filed IA No.186 of 2010 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. The respondent/defendant filed counter, opposing the application and contending that the agreement dated 31.12.2009 is null and void and against the rules and regulations of the Mines and Minerals Act 1957 and the same is not enforceable. The respondent/ defendant would further contend that the plaintiff approached him seeking permission to carry on granite business in an area of 0.95 hectors in Sy.No.107/1 of Mothe village, which is under the control of the defendant and that the previous consent of the State Government in writing was not obtained to assign, sublet, mortgage the mining lands and the plaintiff fabricated a notarized agreement. The learned Junior Civil Judge by order dated 07.05.2010 allowed the application granted temporary injunction, holding that the agreement dated 31.12.2009 coupled with the work agreement dated 01.02.2010 executed by the mason Srinivas, showed a prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiff and the truth or otherwise of the agreement dated 31.12.2009 and the question as to whether or not the agreement is in violation of the terms of the lease can be considered in the main suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred an appeal in CMA No.4 of 2010. The learned II Additional District Judge, by impugned order dated 05.10.2010 allowed the said appeal setting aside the order of injunction granted by the trial Court. Hence, the present revision by the plaintiff. 4. The whole claim of the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction is based on the suit agreement dated 31.12.2009, the genuineness of which is disputed by the defendant. As rightly observed by the appellate Court, the defendant has not disputed the signature on the agreement but is disputing the genuineness of the contents thereof and also contending that the terms of the agreement are in violation of the conditions attached to the mining lease. Admittedly, the mining lease was issued in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff claims to have entered into an agreement with the defendant where under he is entitled to conduct quarrying operation and carry on business. The plaintiff claims to have spent huge amounts in mobilizing the machinery. The defendant however denies the same. The agreement admittedly does not specify that the possession of the plaint schedule property was delivered to the plaintiff. In the counter, the respondent/defendant however stated that the plaintiff erected two temporary small huts in the suit land. A perusal of the suit agreement would show that the plaintiff was merely a licensee permitted to conduct quarrying operation and maintain the quarry subject to the terms and conditions set out therein. As per the terms of the agreement, the defendant, who is the lease-holder, is in possession of the quarry and the plaintiff is permitted only to conduct quarrying operation and marking of the granite etc. The various terms and conditions set out in the agreement would reveal that the parties have agreed upon certain mutual rights and liabilities and contractual obligations towards one another. In the event of breach of any such terms and conditions by either of the parties, the remedy for the other party complaining breach lies elsewhere, but not in filing a suit for permanent injunction. In the event of plaintiff sustaining any loss on account of the alleged breach of terms and conditions of the agreement by the defendant, he would certainly be entitled to claim damages in appropriate proceedings. It is well settled that the relief of permanent injunction cannot be granted when the grievance of the plaintiff can be remedied by way of awarding damages. The learned Junior Civil Judge, without applying mind to the terms and conditions of the agreement, has erroneously granted injunction on the ground that the execution of the agreement itself shows a prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Additional District Judge, in the impugned order, rightly observed that the agreement does not disclose the delivery of possession of the suit quarry in favour of the plaintiff and the agreement itself does not contain any schedule of the property and the plaintiff falsely claims that he came into possession of the quarry itself. 5. In a decision in ‘A.Suryanarayana v. Y. Muralinath Reddy[1]’, this Court held that ‘a contractor is never in possession of a site or any property which is to be constructed for the owner. He is only a licensee. The landlord gives licence to the contractor to enter upon his land for purpose of making construction. Thus being the settled position of law, there was error on the part of both the courts below in granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff.’ 6. In the present case, the plaintiff being mere licensee cannot be said to be in possession of the suit property. In the circumstances and in view of the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement, it must be held that the plaintiff has not made out any prima-facie case in his favour, which is sine quo non for claiming the relief of temporary injunction. The impugned order allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the trial Court granting temporary injunction and consequently, dismissing the said application, does not call for any interference. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 20.09.2011 bss [1] 1997(1) ALD 565