1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 187 OF 2007 Rashidkhan Hamikdhan and another ...Petitioners Versus Mohd. Akhtar Gulam Hyder & others ...Respondents ..... Mr. A.D. Kasliwal, advocate for the petitioners Mr. R.R. Shaikh, advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. S.A.G. Qureshi, advocate for respondent No.2 ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 This Civil Revision Application arises out of the judgment and order dated 24.7.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad in Suit No. 23 of 2003, thereby decreeing the suit for temporary injunction simplicitor with costs against the petitioners herein and respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 2 This Civil Revision Application is filed on behalf of the original defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Since the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 were not 2 even represented before the Wakf Board the impugned judgment has attained the finality against those defendants. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that translated copy at Exh.35 was not proved by the original plaintiffs. However, the Court below has placed reliance on the said document. It is further submitted that the affidavit of translator, who translated the document at Exh.35 has also not examined. Learned counsel further invited my attention to the original documents and more particularly the judgment rendered by the Superintendent of Land Record to contend that the plaintiffs are no way concerned with the disputed land. Learned counsel further submitted that two witnesses were examined on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. He further submitted that the plaintiffs has no locus to file suit and also the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. He invited my attention to the written statement filed before the court below and submitted that this Civil Revision Application deserves to be allowed. 4 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the court below on the basis of documentary evidence placed before the same and after hearing both the sides passed appropriate order and no interference is warranted in the said order at the hands of this Court. 3 5 I have given due consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. It appears that while granting relief to the plaintiffs, the Wakf Tribunal has considered that the suit property is Wakf property and it has been published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette on 24.1.1974, which support the case of the plaintiffs. It is also observed that suit property is Wakf property and the same is Kabrasthan and Masjid for religious purpose of Muslim community at large. On perusal of para 12 of the impugned judgment, the learned Judge was constrained to observe that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have not filed any documents in support of their case. The Court has taken into consideration the various documents, which are mentioned in para 12 of the judgment. 6 Taking over all view of the matter and keeping in mind the entry in the public document, i.e. Government Gazette dated 24.1.1974 and the suit land is being used by Muslim community for Kabrasthan and also a Masjid is there, no interference is warranted. Civil Revision Application is devoid of any merits and the same is rejected. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Record and proceeding be sent back to the concerned court forthwith. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/ 4