C.R.No.2261 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2261 of 2009 . Decided on: December 23, 2009. Haryana Wakf Board .. Petitioner VERSUS Jaswinder Singh and another .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.G.S.Sandhawalia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.K.Bansal, Advocate, for the respondents. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-Board aggrieved by order dated 04.03.2009. While deciding an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, the Wakf Tribunal has finally decided the suit by observing as follows: - 'No useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings in the present suit as . . . 1 C.R.No.2261 of 2009 the only relief claimed in the present suit is that the respondents be restrained from raising construction over the suit property and once the relief of temporary injunction is not available to the plaintiff/applicant then no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings of the present suit especially when the documents on which the plaintiff is placing reliance are already on record and are not bone of the contention between the parties and only the interpretation of them is required which has already been done by this Court in the foregoing paras of this judgment and accordingly, the suit itself stands dismissed with costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.' The adjudication of application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, is based upon the prima facie evidence which is produced before the Court whereas the suit is finally determined on the basis of the determination of issues by permitting the parties to lead evidence on the issues, framed by the Court. An order under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, is made an appealable order by Rule 43 CPC, whereas the judgment and decree passed by a Court is appealable under different provisions i.e., under Section 96 CPC read with Order 41 CPC. A decree passed by a Court has got far reaching legal consequences so far as the rights of the parties are concerned. Where the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed, the plaintiff is debarred from raising the same plea against the same defendant in . . . 2 C.R.No.2261 of 2009 context to the same property. The Wakf Tribunal while determining whether the plaintiff-petitioner had prima facie a strong case felt that the plaintiff petitioner had such a weak case for getting permanent injunction that it opted to dismiss the suit for permanent injunction and passed a decree without determining the merits of the case, after framing issues or permitting the parties to produce their respective evidence. The desire of the Tribunal for expeditious disposal is appreciated but at the same time, injustice which has been caused to the petitioner prejudicing its rights, adopting the slip-shod summary procedure is patently held to be illegal and contrary to the basic cannons of administration of civil justice. The order dated 04.03.2009, is hereby set aside and it is ordered that the order dated 04.03.2009, will only be deemed to have been passed in application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. The parties are directed to appear before the Wakf Tribunal on 23.01.2010, for further proceedings in accordance with law. Disposed of. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE December 23, 2009. rka . . . 3