1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.185/2009. Bhaskarrao s/o Bapurao Patil and Ors. - PETITIONERS VERSUS The Maharashtra State Board of Wakf through its Chief Executive Officer and Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.NK Kakade, Advocate for Petitioners; Mr.MBW Khan, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.HI Pathan, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 4th March, 2010. PER COURT : 1) Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2) In Wakf suit No.84/2008, moved by the plaintiff – Bhaskarrao and others, against Maharashtra State Board of Wakf, Panchakki, Aurangabad, a declaration in respect of Survey No.8 admeasuring 23 acres and 11 gunthas situate 2 at village Wajegaon, is sought on the ground that it is not a wakf property; and cancellation of entry No.75 in part C in Gazette published by the Wakf Board in the year 1974, as it being null and void. 3) In the said proceedings, an application below Exhibit-15 was moved by the present Respondent no.2, staking claim to the property and requiring impleadment in terms of order I Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code. 4) The Counsel for the plaintiff (revision applicant) has criticized the manner in which the orders are passed by the learned Judge, as according to the learned Counsel, the orders do not indicate application of mind or remote existence of right of the said applicant in the property in question. 5) At this stage of the matter, the presence of the applicant (Respondent no.2 in the present proceedings) does not seem to be imperative to properly adjudicate upon the controversy, as coined by the plaintiff -Bhaskarrao, seeking declaration indicated herein above. If the Wakf board desires to call the present respondent no.1 as a witness, the rights of Wakf Board are unbridled, that exercise can be 3 taken up. What I find is, as on today, the rights of said applicants is not adjudicated upon though an application for succession is purportedly moved in the name of Mohammed Mohiyoddin before the Atiyat Court at Nanded. This observation is made on the statement of Mr.Pathan. There is nothing before this Court to indicate that proceedings for grant of succession before the Atiyat Court are pending. 6) In the above situation, the order of impleading the applicants (Respondent no.2 to 4 herein) being uncalled for, is set aside. Any amendment carried before the learned Judge in Wakf Suit No.84/2008 needs to be corrected. Civil Revision Application allowed in above terms. No costs. 7) Needless to add, rejection of application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC will not foreclose the rights of the Wakf Board to summon the respondents herein as witness in the matter. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/cra185.09