Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Trial Court's Ad-Interim Order Due To Earlier Contradictory Order In Another Matter Pending Between Same Parties
A bench of Justice Madan Gopal Vyas at the Rajasthan High Court (“the Court”) quashed an order of a trial court for passing a contradictory ad-interim order over another ad-interim order passed by it in the same matter. The Court observed the following:“This Court finds that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is wholly without application of mind. The learned trial...
A bench of Justice Madan Gopal Vyas at the Rajasthan High Court (“the Court”) quashed an order of a trial court for passing a contradictory ad-interim order over another ad-interim order passed by it in the same matter. The Court observed the following:
“This Court finds that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is wholly without application of mind. The learned trial court cannot stay the effect and operation of its own ad-interim injunction order in another proceeding pending before it.”
Factual Background
The respondent in this appeal had filed a suit before the trial court seeking specific performance of contract and permanent injunction. He was a licensee of a mine situated at Gunawati Range and had submitted that owing to no demarcation of boundaries of the mine, the appellant in this appeal who had their mines adjacent to his, were illegally excavating stones from his mine.
The trial court passed an ad-interim order dated April 4, 2024, in favour of the respondent restraining the parties from any mining activities till the boundaries of the mines, in question, were demarcated. The trial court also ordered writing a letter to the Mining Department for doing the demarcation.
This order was challenged by the appellant on the ground that in another suit filed by the appellant, the trial court had passed an ad-interim order dated March 1, 2024. This order restrained the respondent from interfering in the mining activity of the appellant and also the Mining Department from cancelling the quarry license of the appellant.
Hence, the appeal was preferred by the appellant, before the Court, against the order dated April 4, 2024, in light of the contradictory orders of the trial court.
Court's Verdict
The Court, pursuant to juxtaposing both the orders of the trial court, observed that while in the impugned order, the appellant had been restrained from mining activities, the trial court itself had granted permission for the same to the appellant in its order dated March 3, 2024. Hence, it was ruled that the impugned order was passed wholly without application of mind by the trial court and thus was set aside.
Title: Abdul Rahim and Anr. v M/S Khatri Marble Mines Makrana and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 101