JUDGMENT : FARJAND ALI, J. Grievance and Facts of S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2527/2024- 1. By way of filing this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant has assailed the impugned order dated 01.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Makrana, District Nagaur, in Civil Misc. Case No. 51/2024, whereby the learned Court below has rejected the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction. 2. The brief facts of present case is that the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the Agreement dated 21.12.2017 and for permanent injunction against the respondent-defendants, stating that the defendants are joint license-holders of Mine No.158 admeasuring 231 feet x 30 feet in Gunawati range of Makrana, whose quarry license stands renewed up to 31.03.2025. Defendants Nos.1 to 3 and their late brother Gulam Nabi collectively hold half share i.e. 115.5 feet x 30 feet area in the said mine, which lies in two parts measuring 78 feet and 37.5 feet respectively. Out of this, defendants Nos.1 to 3 entered into an agreement with the appellant on 21.12.2017 for excavation and sale of stone in a 28-feet portion, agreeing to share income in the ratio of 55:45 in their favour and of the appellant respectively, after taking Rs.10,00,000/- as security. The agreement provided that the defendants would first remove the debris and show clear limits/boundaries of the mine to the appellant before commencement of work and would bear all administrative responsibilities, with the tenure of the agreement fixed at four years commencing from 01.04.2018, extendable till settlement of advance money. 3. The appellant contended that the defendants failed to remove the debris and to demarcate the mine limits, due to which excavation could not begin from 01.04.2018 and even during 2019, causing loss of over one year. Later, during 2020, the defendants restrained the appellant from excavation, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and internal disputes over boundary demarcation, which fact was acknowledged in another agreement dated 15.10.2021 executed between the appellant and nephews of the defendants, recording that the mine could not be handed over earlier owing to unsettled borders among the brothers. Later, during 2020, the defendants restrained the appellant from excavation, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and internal disputes over boundary demarcation, which fact was acknowledged in another agreement dated 15.10.2021 executed between the appellant and nephews of the defendants, recording that the mine could not be handed over earlier owing to unsettled borders among the brothers. The appellant asserted that the four-year tenure never effectively commenced and, under condition No.23 of the Agreement, the right to excavate continues until repayment of the entire advance of Rs.49,00,000/- received by the defendants in several tranches. It was alleged that under conditions No.23 and 25, the defendants were to repay the advance from 25% of their 55% share in sales proceeds, which they failed to do. The appellant also pointed out that Mine No.158 had been ordered to be closed by the Mining Engineer under Rule 76 of the RMMCR, 2017 by order dated 26.10.2020 and remained non-operational until 29.08.2023, when defendant Mohammed Rafiq applied for reopening. Subsequently, a fresh site inspection report dated 20.02.2024 directed that operations remain closed in the unsafe area towards the north. The appellant alleged that instead of honouring obligations, defendant Abdul Qayyum filed a frivolous civil suit (No.28/2024) and obtained an interim injunction dated 22.03.2024 by misrepresenting facts about the agreement. Upon learning of the said injunction, the appellant filed the present suit along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, seeking restraint against the defendants from mining or selling stone in the agreement area. 4. The defendants, in reply, denied the appellant’s claims, contending that the mine was handed over on 01.04.2018, the term expired on 31.03.2022, the appellant had already carried out excavation and left debris behind, and that any closure by the department would not extend the agreement period. 5. They also relied on the High Court’s order dated 16.05.2024 passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1598/2024, whereby an ad interim injunction dated 30.04.2024 was set aside. 6. The learned Additional District Judge, Makrana, vide order dated 01.06.2024, dismissed the appellant’s injunction application, holding that under Rules 27 and 28(3)(v) of the RMMCR, 2017, only a licensee can excavate, stock, and sell minerals, and that no written permission under Rule 27 was on record. Appeal No.1598/2024, whereby an ad interim injunction dated 30.04.2024 was set aside. 6. The learned Additional District Judge, Makrana, vide order dated 01.06.2024, dismissed the appellant’s injunction application, holding that under Rules 27 and 28(3)(v) of the RMMCR, 2017, only a licensee can excavate, stock, and sell minerals, and that no written permission under Rule 27 was on record. Observing that the Agreement dated 21.12.2017 was contrary to Rule 27 and hence void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, the Court held that it could not be specifically performed. 7. Aggrieved by the said order dated 01.06.2024 passed in Civil Misc. Case No.51/2024, the appellant has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. Grievance and Facts of S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2507/2024- 8. By way of filing this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order43 Rule 1 CPC, the appellant–defendant has assailed the impugned order dated 01.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Makrana, District Nagaur in Civil Misc. Case No. 28/2024, whereby the learned Court, while dismissing the respondent–plaintiff’s application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC in a suit for permanent injunction against alleged obstruction in removal of debris from Mine No.158, recorded unwarranted and adverse observations touching upon the validity and enforceability of the Agreement dated 21.12.2017, which is independently the subject matter of another suit for specific performance instituted by the present appellant against the respondent. The appellant, therefore, seeks that the said observations and findings concerning the Agreement dated 21.12.2017 be kindly expunged from the impugned order dated 01.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Makrana, District Nagaur in Civil Misc. Case No.28/2024 (Abdul Qayyum vs. Farukh Ahmed & Ors.). 9. The breif facts of of present case is that the respondent–plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellant–defendant, alleging that he and his brothers are joint license-holders of Mine No.158, admeasuring 231 feet x 30 feet, situated in the Gunawati Range of Makrana, whose quarry license stands renewed up to 31.03.2025. It was stated that the plaintiff and his brothers have half share, i.e., 115.5 feet x 30 feet area, in the said mine, divided into two portions of 78 feet and 37.5 feet respectively. It was stated that the plaintiff and his brothers have half share, i.e., 115.5 feet x 30 feet area, in the said mine, divided into two portions of 78 feet and 37.5 feet respectively. The plaintiff claimed that an Agreement dated 21.12.2017 was executed between the parties, whereby the appellant–defendant was permitted to carry out excavation and sale of quarry stones in 28 feet area from the aforesaid 37.5 feet spread. As per terms, the income from sale of finished mine stones was to be shared in the ratio of 45:55 between the plaintiff and defendant, respectively, and a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was taken from the plaintiff as security. The arrangement was to commence from 01.04.2018 for four years ending on 31.03.2022, and it was further agreed that after removal of debris from the site, the defendants would demarcate and show mine boundaries to avoid any future disputes, with overall administrative responsibility lying upon them. The plaintiff contended that despite expiry of the Agreement, the appellant was obstructing the removal of debris and threatening closure of the mine in collusion with the Mining Department, hence filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking interim injunction against such obstruction. 10. The appellant–defendant, in reply, denied that the Agreement period had expired, asserting that its operation never commenced since the plaintiff failed to fulfill essential obligations under clauses 12, 14, 22, 23, and 25 of the Agreement. It was contended that the Agreement remains subsisting, the plaintiff failed to remove debris and hand over the mine for work, and despite that, the plaintiff received Rs.49 lakhs in total from the appellant. It was further stated that excavation could not start due to COVID-19 restrictions in 2020 and subsequent closure of the mine by the Mining Engineer upon the demise of one of the licensees. Later, the Mines Department, by notice dated 18.01.2024, closed the mine from 20.02.2024 declaring parts of it unsafe, which fact was allegedly concealed by the plaintiff while filing the injunction application. 11. Upon hearing both sides, the learned Additional District Judge, Makrana, dismissed the plaintiff’s application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC by order dated 01.06.2024, holding that the plaintiff had concealed material facts regarding departmental closure notices and inspections conducted on 25.04.2024, 30.04.2024, and 03.05.2024. 11. Upon hearing both sides, the learned Additional District Judge, Makrana, dismissed the plaintiff’s application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC by order dated 01.06.2024, holding that the plaintiff had concealed material facts regarding departmental closure notices and inspections conducted on 25.04.2024, 30.04.2024, and 03.05.2024. The Court observed that since the plaintiff had not approached with clean hands, no equitable relief could be granted. The Court also noted that the Mining Department’s inspection and the Surveyor’s report dated 03.05.2024 found the mine unsafe and directed that no mining work be undertaken. The Court further examined the legality of the Agreement dated 21.12.2017 and concluded that it was contrary to Rules 27 and 28(3)(v) of the RMMCR, 2017, which permit excavation, stocking, and sale only by the licensee with prior written permission of the competent authority, and hence, being in violation of mandatory statutory provisions, the Agreement was void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. Accordingly, the learned ADJ held that the plaintiff had failed to establish prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury in his favour and consequently dismissed the temporary injunction application vide impugned order dated 01.06.2024. 12. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant–appellant has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the findings and conclusions recorded by the learned trial court. Greivance and Facts of S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2535/2024- 13. By way of filing this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC, the appellant has assailed the order dated 01.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Makrana, District Nagaur in Civil Misc. Case No. 28/2024, whereby the learned Court, while considering the appellant’s application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking interim protection against alleged obstruction in removal of debris and excavation work from the licensed Mine No.158, rejected the same and recorded certain unwarranted observations touching upon the validity of the Agreement dated 21.12.2017, which is independently the subject matter of another suit pending between the parties. 14. That brief facts of the case are that the appellant–plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of Mine No.158 situated at Rang Gunawati Road, Makrana, wherein the appellant and his brothers are joint license-holders, and the appellant claims share and possession over a 28-feet portion of the said mine. 14. That brief facts of the case are that the appellant–plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of Mine No.158 situated at Rang Gunawati Road, Makrana, wherein the appellant and his brothers are joint license-holders, and the appellant claims share and possession over a 28-feet portion of the said mine. It was stated that an Agreement dated 21.12.2017 was executed between the appellant and the respondents for carrying out mining operations on certain terms and conditions, the tenure of which was to expire on 31.03.2022 and was not thereafter extended, thereby extinguishing any rights of the respondents under the said Agreement. The appellant alleged that while attempting to remove debris and sand from the mine, respondent No.1, in collusion with respondent No.3, started causing obstruction and also threatened to procure cancellation of the mining license, due to which the appellant filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents from creating any hindrance in removing debris/sand and marble stones from the licensed mine. The respondents, in their reply, admitted execution of the Agreement dated 21.12.2017 but asserted that its tenure neither commenced on 01.04.2018 nor expired on 31.03.2022, as several preconditions of the Agreement remained unfulfilled by the appellant, and that under the terms thereof, they were entitled to 45% of the income from the mine. The learned trial court, after hearing both parties and considering their respective contentions, dismissed the temporary injunction application filed by the appellant vide order dated01.06.2024. 15. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Makrana, District Nagaur, the appellant has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal . 16. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record. 17. Since all the three captioned Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of interconnected suits and challenge orders passed by the same learned Additional District Judge, Makrana, District Nagaur, dated 01.06.2024, pertaining to the same subject matter, Mine No.158 situated in Gunawati Range, Makrana and since the central controversy in all three appeals revolves around the interpretation, validity, and effect of the Agreement dated 21.12.2017 between the parties, this Court deems it appropriate and expedient, in the interest of justice and to avoid conflicting findings, to dispose of all these appeals by this common order. 18. Observations and Findings: Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, documents, and impugned orders placed on record, as also the rival submissions advanced, this Court finds that the disputes in all three appeals stem from the same contractual arrangement and its alleged performance, non-performance, and termination in relation to Mine No.158. The learned Court below, while dealing with the applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, had before it the entire spectrum of relevant material including the Agreement dated 21.12.2017, subsequent correspondences, site inspection reports of the Mining Department, and the pleadings of both sides and having appreciated the same; recorded detailed reasons, supported by statutory provisions under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (RMMCR, 2017), and the Indian Contract Act, 1872, while arriving at its conclusion that no case for grant of temporary injunction was made out. 19. It is trite that the grant or refusal of interim injunction lies within the sound judicial discretion of the Court of first instance. The appellate Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, does not sit as a Court of substitution to re-appreciate the material and arrive at a different conclusion merely because an alternative view may be possible. It is equally well-settled that the scope of interference in an appeal under Order 43 against an interlocutory injunction is extremely limited, and the appellate Court is expected to exercise such jurisdiction with great care and circumspection, the appeal itself being an appeal on principle. The Supreme Court in Wander Ltd. & Anr. v. Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727 , has held as under - 14.The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the Appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate Court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by the court was reasonably possible on the material. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate Court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by the court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the Trial Court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Gajebdragadjarm, J. in Printers (Mysore)Private ltd. v. Pothan Joseph- “... These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osention & Co. v. Johnston the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case.” 20. In Wander Ltd. (Supra) has held that the appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Court of first instance and substitute its own view unless the discretion is shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely, or in disregard of the settled principles regulating the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. The Court further observed that an appellate forum will not reassess the material to reach a different conclusion if the one arrived at by the trial Court is reasonably possible on the record, and that mere divergence of opinion is not a ground for interference. If the discretion has been exercised reasonably and in a judicial manner, the fact that the appellate Court might have taken a different view at the first instance is no ground to upset the order. These principles, reiterated in Printers (Mysore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph, highlight that difficulty arises not from law but from its application to individual cases. If the discretion has been exercised reasonably and in a judicial manner, the fact that the appellate Court might have taken a different view at the first instance is no ground to upset the order. These principles, reiterated in Printers (Mysore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph, highlight that difficulty arises not from law but from its application to individual cases. In view of these settled parameters, the appellate intervention is warranted only when the impugned order suffers from manifest illegality or results in grave miscarriage of justice, which is not demonstrated in the present matters. 21. In the instant cases, this Court finds that the learned Additional District Judge has examined in extenso the pleadings, the Agreement in question, and the statutory framework governing mining operations. The finding that under Rules 27 and 28(3)(v) of the RMMCR, 2017, only a licensee is competent to excavate, stock, or sell mineral, and that no written permission from the competent authority was produced by either side authorizing the appellant to carry out excavation, is legally sustainable to the extent of deciding a prima facie case. Once the agreement itself in prima facie opinion of the trial court was found to be in contravention of a statutory rule, the trial Court was justified in holding that it was hit by Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, being opposed to law and public policy, and therefore incapable of specific enforcement. 22. Further, as regards the ingredients for temporary injunction, namely existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable injury, the Court below has rightly observed that no prima facie right capable of protection during the pendency of the suit was established by either side. The balance of convenience, if any, leaned in favour of preserving the status quo of non-operation directed by the Mining Department rather than permitting private excavation in violation of official closure orders. As regards “irreparable injury,” it has been correctly observed that any alleged monetary loss can be compensated in terms of money, and thus does not constitute an injury of an irreparable or incalculable nature. 23. It is also relevant that the respective suits, whether for specific performance or for injunction are still pending adjudication before the learned trial Court, wherein all questions relating to the validity, subsistence, and enforceability of the Agreement dated 21.12.2017 will be examined on evidence and merits. 23. It is also relevant that the respective suits, whether for specific performance or for injunction are still pending adjudication before the learned trial Court, wherein all questions relating to the validity, subsistence, and enforceability of the Agreement dated 21.12.2017 will be examined on evidence and merits. Therefore, any interim indulgence at this stage would virtually amount to granting the very relief claimed in the main suit, which is impermissible in law. 24. The plea advanced by the appellants that the learned trial Court travelled beyond the scope of the injunction application while commenting upon the validity of the Agreement, also does not merit acceptance. The learned Judge was well within jurisdiction to examine whether the document, upon which interim protection was sought, was prima facie lawful and enforceable. The observations made are only prima facie in nature, confined to the consideration of temporary injunction, and shall not prejudice the final adjudication of the main suits. 25. This Court finds no perversity, patent illegality, or disregard of settled principles in the manner in which discretion was exercised by the Court below. All relevant facts, pleadings, and documentary materials were duly considered. The conclusions drawn are supported by reasons germane to the record and consistent with the principles governing injunction jurisprudence. The learned trial Court has neither ignored material evidence nor relied upon extraneous considerations. 26. In the conspectus of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders dated01.06.2024 do not suffer from any infirmity warranting appellate interference. The discretion exercised by the Court of first instance is judicious, reasonable, and in accordance with law. The rights of the parties being sub judice before the competent civil Court, their respective contentions regarding the Agreement dated 21.12.2017 shall be adjudicated finally on evidence, uninfluenced by any prima facie observations either in the impugned orders or in this common order. 27. Consequently, all the three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, namely Nos. 2527/2024, 2507/2024, and 2535/2024, being devoid of merit, are hereby dismissed. The impugned orders dated 01.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Makrana, District Nagaur, are affirmed. It is, however, clarified that any observations made herein or in the impugned orders are of a tentative nature and shall not influence the trial Court while deciding the pending suits on merits. 28. No order as to costs.