IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELVETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5895 OF 2009 Between : Shri Vikaruddin Ali Khan and others. ... PETITIONERS A N D A.P.State Wakf Board and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 5895 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 26.08.2009, in I.A.293 of 2008 in O.S.No.2297 of 2007 on the file of IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 C.P.C., to implead the respondent No.1 i.e., A.P.State Wakf Board, as defendant No.2 in O.S.No.2297 of 2007, was allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that originally the Original Suit No.2297 of 2007 was filed by the petitioners against respondent No.2 for declaration and consequential relief of perpetual injunction. The petitioners also filed a petition to restrain the respondents from interfering with the construction activities over the suit schedule property. After hearing both sides, the said petition was allowed. Thereafter, respondent No.1 herein filed an interlocutory application No.293 of 2008 to implead it as D2 in the suit, on the ground that the suit schedule property is a Wakf property and therefore, it is a necessary and proper party to the suit, which was allowed by the impugned order. 3. Under Order I Rule 10 (2) C.P.C., a party who has got semblance of right over the property can come on record, so that the real controversy in dispute can be resolved once for all, without there being any multiplicity of proceedings. This is the object of Order I Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. 4. O.S.No.2297 of 2007 is filed by the petitioners herein challenging the show cause notice issued by respondent No.2 – Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. In that suit, the plaintiffs, i.e., petitioner Nos.1 to 6 herein, claimed that they are owners and possessors of the property. 5. When the case of the petitioners is that they are the owners of the property, the show cause notice issued by respondent No.2 – Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, is null and void and for consequential reliefs of perpetual injunction, the incidental title of the petitioners have to be gone into. 6. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition by the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board, it is categorically stated that the property bearing Municipal No.3-6-527, admeasuring 3000 sq.yards, popularly known as Jamsheed Khan Mosque, which is a registered one and also published in Gazette Notification, dated 19.11.1984. Therefore, prima facie case, at this stage the Mosque has got semblance of right over the property, because it is a registered Mosque and duly notified in the Gazette. Therefore, the trial court exercised its discretion in impleading the respondent No.1 as defendant No.2 in O.S.No.2297 of 2007. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU. J NOVEMBER 12, 2010. YVL