JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction: (i) quash the order impugned dated 01.08.2023 (Annexure-10) passed by the Learned Addl. District Judge, Makrana, District Nagaur in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 23/2019 and order dated 16.05.2019 (Annexure-5) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Makrana, District Nagaur in Civil Misc. Case No. 17/2017 may be restored back throughout. (ii) the temporary injunction application filed by the respondent no. 1/plaintiff may kindly be dismissed with costs in toto. (iii) any other appropriate relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit necessary in the fact and circumstances of the present case be granted in favour of the petitioner. (iv) Cost of the writ petition kindly ordered to be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the respondent no. 1 instituted a suit for declaration of rights and permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Makrana, stating therein that Mine No. 1 situated at Matabhar Range, Makrana, was earlier belonging to one Mohammad Ismail, and later on, the same was allotted to the father of the respondent no. 1; the petitioner was financier of the respondent’s father, who was excavating mines on contract basis. Thereafter, the petitioner gave Rs. 9 lacs per annum as share for the mine in question to the family of the respondent no. 1, and then the petitioner got the lease of the mine in question transferred in his name. It was further stated that the petitioner, while taking undue advantage of his terms and relations with the respondent no. 1’s family, got the mine in question transferred in his (petitioner’s) name. 2.1. The learned Court below, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 16.05.2019 dismissed the said temporary injunction application of the respondent no. 1. Being aggrieved, the respondent no. 1 preferred an appeal under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 before the learned Additional District Judge, Prabatsar. 2.2. 1. Being aggrieved, the respondent no. 1 preferred an appeal under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 before the learned Additional District Judge, Prabatsar. 2.2. The learned Appellate Court on 04.09.2019 passed an interim order restraining the petitioner from doing illegal excavation works in the mine in question, till the next date before it. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for non-extension of the said interim order. The learned Appellate Court vide the impugned order dated 01.08.2023 allowed the appeal of the respondent no. 1, while quashing and setting aside the order dated 16.05.2019 passed by the learned Trial Court, and restrained the petitioner from doing the excavation works in the mine in question. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the possession of the mine in question was indisputably settled, and the petitioner is doing mining work for last almost 50 years. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court is not justified in law. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the transfer of the mine in question was made in favour of the petitioner on 25.05.1971 by the Competent Mining Authority. It was also submitted that the petitioner is paying the rent, renewal fee and all other expenses pertaining to the mine in question. 3.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has also applied for extension of area which was permitted to the petitioner on 31.03.1980, and therefore, the petitioner is rightly holding the mine in question, and on that count also, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3.3. Learned counsel also submitted that for challenging the transfer of the mine in question, the appropriate remedy, at the relevant time, was filing of revision as well as appeal under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, but the respondent/plaintiff, rather than availing such appropriate remedy, instituted the suit in question in the year 2017 before the learned Trial Court. 3.4. Learned counsel further submitted that during the pendency of the suit in question, the parties have entered into a compromise on 01.07.2013, and upon the said compromise, the respondent no. 1’s family have made their thumb impression and accepted the said compromise, thereby accepting the fact that the mine in question belonged to the petitioner. 4. 3.4. Learned counsel further submitted that during the pendency of the suit in question, the parties have entered into a compromise on 01.07.2013, and upon the said compromise, the respondent no. 1’s family have made their thumb impression and accepted the said compromise, thereby accepting the fact that the mine in question belonged to the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that mine in question was illegally encroached by the petitioner and after death of Prema Ram (father of the respondent no. 1 and husband of the respondent no. 2), the mine in question got transferred in the name of the petitioner on the basis of furnishing false and forged affidavit of the respondent no. 2, i.e. without any consent of the respondents. 4.1. It was further submitted that at the time of the transfer in question, the respondent no. 1 was a minor and as per Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, only a natural guardian can make any transfer on behalf of the minor (respondent no. 1 in the present case); therefore, as per learned counsel, the entire transfer regarding the mine in question was illegal and against the provisions of law. 4.2. It was also submitted that the learned Appellate Court, has duly considered all the relevant aspects of the case, and thereafter, passed the impugned order, while observing that prima facie case is made out in favour of the respondent, and thus, rightly passed the injunction order in his favour, in regard to the mine in question. 4.3 In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments: (a) Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot vs. Baldev Dass in Civil Appeal No. 6792 of 2004, decided on 15.10.2004 (b) Dalpat Kumar and Another vs. Prahlad Singh and Others, (1992) 1 SCC 719 (c) Virendra Singh and Others vs. Kashiram (Deceased) through LRs. in S.B. Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1992 decided on 06.04.1992 (d) Bhagwati Singh vs. Raja Laxman Singh in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3459 of 2008 decided on 11.12.2013 (e) M/s Toyal Bros vs. Gram Panchayat Chichorwari in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 583 of 1983 decided on 19.07.1988 5. in S.B. Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1992 decided on 06.04.1992 (d) Bhagwati Singh vs. Raja Laxman Singh in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3459 of 2008 decided on 11.12.2013 (e) M/s Toyal Bros vs. Gram Panchayat Chichorwari in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 583 of 1983 decided on 19.07.1988 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 6. This Court observes that the respondent no. 1 instituted the aforementioned suit and filed the temporary injunction application, whereupon, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 16.05.2019 rejected the temporary injunction application. The respondent no. 1, against the said order of the learned Trial Court, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, whereupon, vide the impugned order dated 01.08.2023, the appeal was allowed, while granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent no. 1/plaintiff. 7. This Court further observes that the learned Trial Court in its order dated 16.05.2019 observed that in the quarry license dated 01.02.1964 of the mine in question, the name of the petitioner was shown, and that, it was also recorded that the petitioner also submitted the documents to prove his rights over the mine in question. 8. This Court also observes that the mine in question was transferred by the Prema Ram (father of the respondent no. 1 and husband of the respondent no. 2) in favour of the petitioner in the year 1971, and thereafter, the petitioner paid all the expenses for the mine in question. 9. This Court further observes that a compromise was arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent, wherein the respondent admitted the transfer of mine in question in the year 1971. 10. This Court also observes that the respondent did not show any document, which could disprove the entitlement of the petitioner, in relation to the mine in question. This Court further observes that the petitioner is running the mine in question since the year 1971, and that, prima facie case was not made out in favour of the respondent no. 1 11. This Court also observes that the learned Appellate Court granted the temporary injunction without considering the irreparable loss of the petitioner, pertaining to the mine in question. 1 11. This Court also observes that the learned Appellate Court granted the temporary injunction without considering the irreparable loss of the petitioner, pertaining to the mine in question. This Court further observes that no case was made out for grant of temporary injunction in favour of the respondent, and therefore the impugned order passed by the learned Appellant Court is not justified in law. 12. The judgments cited on behalf of the respondents also do not render any assistance to their case. 13. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.08.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Makrana, District Nagaur in Civil Appeal No. 23/2019 (C.I.S. No. 09/2019) is quashed and set aside. All pending applications stand disposed of.