Civil Revision No. 6018 of 2007 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 6018 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : 6.5.2009 Muslim Janta Welfare Action Committee (Regd.) ..... Petitioner vs Punjab Wakf Board and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate, for respondents no. 1 and 2. Rajesh Bindal J. Aggrieved against the judgment of the learned Wakf Tribunal, Amritsar, the petitioner is before this court. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner-plaintiff Committee filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent-defendants from taking forcible and illegal possession of land measuring 52 kanals 1 marla which is allegedly forming part of graveyard. The learned court below having dismissed the suit, the petitioner Committee is before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner- plaintiff is a committee constituted by Kashmiri Muslims to protect the interests of its members. The land in question is forming part of graveyard where graves of ancestral of the members of the petitioner-committee are existing. In fact, the respondents wanted to uproot those graves which necessitated the filing of the suit. The learned court below did not appreciate the contentions of the petitioner and the material placed by them on record while dismissing the suit. Further submission that in the earlier litigation, the land in question was held to be a part of graveyard vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.1982 and the respondents were restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs therein unless in due course of law. Thereafter, even the suit for possession filed by the Wakf Board was also dismissed which judgment was upheld in appeal. In view of these facts, the Civil Revision No. 6018 of 2007 (2) respondents could not possibly interfere into the possession of the members of the Committee. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner did not have any locus to file the present suit. It was sought to be filed in a representative capacity whereas name of none of the persons who was member of the Committee was mentioned. Further once vide judgment of the court below pertaining to the same property, possession of some other persons has been protected, there was no cause of action with the petitioner to file the present suit as injunction protecting the possession of the same property cannot possibly be issued in favour of different persons at different time. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Admittedly, earlier a suit was filed by Mohd. Yousaf and others against Punjab Wakf Board and certain private persons for permanent injunction protecting the possession of property measuring 52 kanals 1 marla claiming the same to be graveyard in which the learned trial court recorded a finding that suit property was graveyard meant for burial of Muslims and the plaintiffs therein were found to be in possession of the property. It was further directed that the plaintiffs therein may not be dispossessed otherwise then in due course of law. The appeal filed by the Wakf Board against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed on 31.12.1986. Thereafter, the Punjab Wakf Board filed suit for possession on 25.7.1994 with regard to the same property against the plaintiffs in the earlier suit, however, the same was dismissed. Even the appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment was also dismissed by the learned Lower Appellate court on 4.12.1995. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner Committee filed the present suit for permanent injunction claiming that its members are in possession of the suit property. There is no list of members showing whether it is the same persons who had filed the earlier suit or someone else, has been appended or placed on record with the suit though filed in representative capacity. Once there is already injunction order passed by the learned court below regarding the same property, there was no reason for the court to have entertained a fresh suit filed by a third party claiming possession of the same property. Civil Revision No. 6018 of 2007 (3) Accordingly, I do not find that any illegality has been committed by the learned court below in dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner. Dismissed. 6.5.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge