AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.A. Puj, J.—The appellant/original plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal through its power of attorney holder u/s 100 of the CPC challenging the judgment and order dated 14th July, 1980 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Kachchh at Bhuj in Regular Civil Appeal No. 69 of 1978 confirming the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Bhuj in Regular Civil Suit No. 134 of 1973.
This Second Appeal was admitted on 06th December, 1980 and following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration and determination of this Court:
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1966, apply to the leases granted prior to the commencement of the said Rules? Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, leases for fixed period and for a fixed rent could be so construed as to enable the Government to unilaterally enhance the rent to any extent?.
What is the effect of Section 45 which repeals and saves the Bombay Minor Minerals Extraction Rules, 1955?
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the rate of rent was revisable at the end of the stipulated period of the lease? If yes, whether the Government is entitled to revise the rent upwards before such stipulated period?
During the pendency of this Second Appeal, the power of attorney holder through whom the present Second Appeal was filed had expired on 17th December, 1996. Initially, this Second Appeal was filed by the appellant through his advocate Shri R.A. Mehta who was later on elevated to the Bench of this Court. Thereafter, fresh notice was issued and on issuance of that notice, it has come to the knowledge that the power of attorney holder expired on 17th December, 1996. No other arrangement was made by the appellant so as to make proper representation on its behalf.
Be that as it may, the orders passed by the Courts below are based on concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts. Even otherwise, as per the submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, the lease period is already over.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that the matter is of 1980, the Court does not see any justification to keep this matter pending for any further time and since there being concurrent findings of both the Courts below, there is no reason to interfere with the said findings.
This Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs.