IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 03.08.2010 C.R.No.3845 of 2009 Harbhajan Singh ...Petitioner Versus Haryana Wakf Board and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Lehar, Advocate, for respondent No.1. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned Wakf Tribunal on 09.04.2009, whereby the defendant- petitioner was directed to hand-over the vacant possession of the suit property. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not in possession of the suit property and, in fact, it is Gurudwara Lubana Biradari, Mehlanwali, who is in possession of the suit property. He further contended that the respondents-plaintiff has moved an application for impleading the said Gurudwara Lubana Biradari, Mehlanwali as a party in the proceedings before the Tribunal. Therefore, in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner cannot be called upon to hand-over the vacant possession of the suit property. On the basis of arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it transpires that the plaintiff is not claiming any interest in the suit property. Admittedly, Gurudwara Lubana Biradari, Mehlanwali is not a C.R.No. 3845 of 2009 party to the present proceedings. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal will not affect the rights of Gurudwara Lubana Biradari, Mehlanwali, who is said to be in possession of the suit property, by the petitioner. In view of the said fact, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal, at the instance of the present petitioner, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. 03.08.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2