Telangana High Court
Mohd.Kareemuddin vs Syed Qasim Manzoor Miyan And 2 Others on 19 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1756, 1759, 1760 & 1911 OF 2021 COMMON ORDER:
The lis involved in all these revision petitions being one and the same, all the matters are heard together and are being decided by way of this common order.
2. C.R.P.No.1756 of 2021 arises out of the order dated 21.10.2021 made in I.A.No.501 of 2019 in O.S.No.26 of 2019 on the file of the Telangana State Waqf Tribunal, at Hyderabad.
3. C.R.P.No.1759 of 2021 arises out of the order dated 21.10.2021 made in I.A.No.500 of 2019 in O.S.No.25 of 2019 on the file of the Telangana State Waqf Tribunal, at Hyderabad.
4. C.R.P.No.1760 of 2021 arises out of the order dated 21.10.2021 made in I.A.No.502 of 2019 in O.S.No.27 of 2019 on the file of the Telangana State Waqf Tribunal, at Hyderabad. 2
SKS,J CRP.Nos.1756, 1759, 1760 & 1911 of 2021
5. C.R.P.No.1911 of 2021 arises out of the order dated 21.10.2021 made in I.A.No.503 of 2019 in O.S.No.16 of 2019 on the file of the Telangana State Waqf Tribunal, at Hyderabad.
6. In all the matters, the revision petitioners are plaintiffs, respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the respondent No.1 herein is the implead petitioner/proposed defendant No.3 in O.S.Nos.25, 26, 27 and 16 of 2019.
7. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the suits.
8. The brief facts of the cases are as follows: C.R.P.No.1756 of 2021
8.1. The plaintiff filed suit for declaration vide O.S.No.26 of 2019. In the said suit, the proposed defendant filed I.A.No.501 of 2019 under Order I Rule 10, read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice, praying to implead him as defendant No.3 in the said suit stating that plaintiff filed false suit in respect of house No.16-4-741/1 situated at Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, and basing on an application made by him, to safeguard the waqf property an 3 SKS,J CRP.Nos.1756, 1759, 1760 & 1911 of 2021 addendum was published in the official gazette dated 08.01.2014, as such, his presence and participation is essential in the suit, therefore, prayed to implead him as defendant No.3 in O.S.No.26 of 2019.
8.2. The defendant No.2 filed a counter affidavit in the said I.A., stating that the addendum was published at the instance of Waqf Board after his enquiry, as such, the proposed defendant is not a necessary party, therefore, prayed to dismiss the said I.A., with costs.
8.3. On behalf of implead petitioner Exs.P1 to P7 were marked and no documents were marked on behalf of respondents in I.A. C.R.P.No.1759 of 2021 8.4. The plaintiff filed suit for declaration vide O.S.No.25 of 2019. In the said suit, the proposed defendant filed I.A.No.500 of 2019 under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C., praying to implead him as defendant No.3 in the said suit stating that plaintiff filed false suit in respect of house No.16-4-741 situated at Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, and basing on an application made by him, to safeguard the waqf property an addendum was published in the 4 SKS,J CRP.Nos.1756, 1759, 1760 & 1911 of 2021 official gazette dated 08.01.2014, as such, his presence and participation is essential in the suit, therefore, prayed to implead him as defendant No.3 in O.S.No.25 of 2019.
8.5. The right to file counter by Waqf Board was forfeited. The defendant No.2 filed a counter affidavit in the said I.A., stating that the addendum was published at the instance of Waqf Board after his enquiry, as such, the proposed defendant is not a necessary party, therefore, prayed to dismiss the said I.A., with costs.
8.6. On behalf of implead petitioner Exs.P1 to P10 were marked and no documents were marked on behalf of respondents in I.A. C.R.P.No.1760 of 2021 8.7. The plaintiff filed suit for declaration vide O.S.No.27 of 2019. In the said suit, the proposed defendant filed I.A.No.502 of 2019 under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice, praying to implead him as defendant No.3 in the said suit stating that plaintiff filed false suit in respect of house No.16-4-741/1 situated at Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, and basing on an 5 SKS,J CRP.Nos.1756, 1759, 1760 & 1911 of 2021 application made by him, to safeguard the waqf property an addendum was published in the official gazette dated 08.01.2014, as such, his presence and participation is essential in the suit, therefore, prayed to implead him as defendant No.3 in O.S.No.27 of 2019.
8.8. The right to file counter by Waqf Board was forfeited. The defendant No.2 filed a counter affidavit in the said I.A., stating that the addendum was published at the instance of Waqf Board after his enquiry, as such, the proposed defendant is not a necessary party, therefore, prayed to dismiss the said I.A., with costs.
8.9. On behalf of implead petitioner Exs.P1 to P7 were marked and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked on behalf of respondents in I.A. C.R.P.No.1911 of 2021 8.10. The plaintiff filed suit for declaration vide O.S.No.16 of 2019. In the said suit, the proposed defendant filed I.A.No.503 of 2019 under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice, praying to implead him as defendant No.3 in the said suit stating that 6 SKS,J CRP.Nos.1756, 1759, 1760 & 1911 of 2021 plaintiff filed false suit in respect of house No.16-4-741/1 situated at Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, and basing on an application made by him, to safeguard the waqf property an addendum was published in the official gazette dated 08.01.2014, as such, his presence and participation is essential in the suit, therefore, prayed to implead him as defendant No.3 in O.S.No.16 of 2019.
8.11. The right to file counter by Waqf Board was forfeited. The defendant No.2 filed a counter affidavit in the said I.A., stating that the addendum was published at the instance of Waqf Board after his enquiry, as such, the proposed defendant is not a necessary party, therefore, prayed to dismiss the said I.A., with costs.
8.12. On behalf of implead petitioner Exs.P1 to P8 were marked and no documents were marked on behalf of respondents in I.A.
9. On considering the submissions made by both sides and after going through the documents placed on record, the trial Court allowed I.A.Nos.501, 500, 502 and 503 of 2019 in O.S.Nos.26, 25, 27 and 16 of 2019, respectively, vide common 7 SKS,J CRP.Nos.1756, 1759, 1760 & 1911 of 2021 order dated 21.10.2021 and permitted the implead petitioners to come on record in the suit as defendant No.3.
10. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.26, 25, 27 and 16 of 2019 preferred C.R.P.Nos.1756, 1759, 1760 and 1911 of 2021 respectively.
11. Heard Sri Mohammad Sanaullah Farhan, learned counsel for revision petitioners in all the matters. Learned counsel Sri Mohammad Abdul Mateen Qureshi, learned counsel Sri Abu Akram, learned counsel Sri M.Mehdi Hussai, and learned counsel Sri M.A.Shakeel, appearing for respondents in all the matters.
12. Learned counsel for revision petitioners would submit that the impugned common order dated 21.10.2021 is against the established principles of law as the Waqf Tribunal erred in holding that the presence of the respondent NO.1/implead petitioner herein is necessary party to the suit. He contended that after the publication of the addendum notification published in the official gazette dated 08.01.2014 the respondent NO.1 has no role in the matter as regards the challenge to the gazette is concerned. Further, the Waqf Tribunal ought to have considered 8 SKS,J CRP.Nos.1756, 1759, 1760 & 1911 of 2021 the fact that the Waqf Board and the present Muthawalli were already arrayed as defendants in the suits as they are competent to protect the interest of the Waqf.
13. In addition to the above, learned counsel for revision petitioners asserted that the Waqf Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the respondent No.1 even otherwise, neither pleaded his interest, nor filed any document to establish his interest over the property. He averred that the criminal antecedents of respondent No.1 were not taken into account while impleading him as necessary party to the suits and reiterated that respondent NO.1 got himself impleaded in the suits without any basis. As such, prayed this Court to allow the revision petitions, setting aside the common order dated 21.10.2021 made in I.A.Nos.501, 500, 502 and 503 of 2019 in O.S.Nos.26, 25, 27 and 16 of 2019, respectively.
14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents would submit that there are no illegalities in the order dated 21.10.2021 and the Waqf Tribunal has rightly permitted the respondent No.1 to come on record in the suits. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the revision petitions as the same lacks merits. 9
SKS,J CRP.Nos.1756, 1759, 1760 & 1911 of 2021
15. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on perusing the material placed on record, it is noted that the principle of law involved in the present cases is the law of dominus-litis. However, any third party who is likely to suffer any grievance on account of the out come of the litigation is also entitled for impleadment. Therefore, it can be said that the principle of dominus-litis cannot be over-stretched.
16. In the present case, the contention of the proposed party is that at the instance of his persuasion, the addendum was issued and that he has relevant documents to protect the waqf property. Further, except the protection of waqf properties, there is no other ulterior motive in his impleadment.
17. That apart, this Court is of the opinion that to enable the Waqf Tribunal to effectively and entirely adjudicate the dispute and settle all the questions involved in the suits, the presence of respondent No.1 is required in view of the documents filed on his behalf. Therefore, it is concluded that the Waqf Tribunal has rightly allowed the I.A.Nos.501, 500, 502 and 503 of 2019 in O.S.Nos.26, 25, 27 and 16 of 2019, respectively, vide order dated 21.10.2021 observing that the proposed implead petitioner is 10 SKS,J CRP.Nos.1756, 1759, 1760 & 1911 of 2021 necessary party to the suits. There are no merits in these revision petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed.
18. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________ K.SUJANA, J DATE:19.03.2024 PT