1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRA NO.218 OF 2011 MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF WAKFS THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AURANGABAD VERSUS MUKARRAM ALI KHURRAM ALI AND ORS ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Khan M.B.W. Mr. Kasliwal Ajit D. Adv For Respdt.1 To 4. ***** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 5th DECEMBER,2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard. Two parallel proceedings are initiated by Wakf Board and also the respondents. It was agreed between the litigants that the evidence in respondents’ suit would be commenced and same would be read in the proceedings initiated by the Wakf Board. Consequently, evidence in the suit of the respondents has reached and even completed the stage of evidence. Thereafter, the revision applicant – Wakf Board feels that in its suit, there should be amendment incorporating prayer for mandatory injunction for restoration of so-called encroached portion. 2) The on-going litigation has to be attended to with certain limitations. The plaintiff/revision applicant, was in slumber all throughout and the matter has crossed the stage of evidence, rejection by the learned Presiding Officer for amendment was 2 justified. No interference requires, CRA dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/