•^ ^'^•^-^^•^^••J^\: IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W,P.(227l No. 3^1 of 2010 PETITIONERS Applicants \.o ^ .•_'o-^ 0,< ^cs'^ ^y .\?' ":>;s1 .^w ^.' ^ ./ :l)Abdul Mannan Khan, son of Shri Abdulla Khan, aged about L(7SS) years, resident of Village Saragaon, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.), :2) Kumari Rana Parveen, daughter of Abdulla Khan, aged about 46 years, resident of Juni Line, Near Santosh Bhojnalay, Bilaspur (C.G.). Versus ^ Plaintiff 85 Defendants RESPONDENTS :1) Chhattisgarh Wakf Board, T)') through Its Chief Executive Officer Dr. S.A.Farooqui, S/o. Shri A.S.Farooqui, aged about 49 years, R/o. C-12, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), ^"" :2) Rafiq Ahmed Khan, son of Late Haji Mohammed Masood Khan, aged about 79 years, resident of Juni Line, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) at present Flat No.ll 3 Utkarsh Niman, Mangalwari Bazar, Sadar Nagpur, Maharashtra State ............. PLAINTIFF :3) State of C.G., through Secretary, Department of Dharmaswa, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) :4) Intezamia committee, Jama Masjid (Wakf), Bilha, Bilaspur through Mohammad Sharif, aged about 72 years, S/o. Late Ghafoor Khan, R/o. Om Nagar, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA •ty^^V^.'rV^'^i^'^^S^^"^^''.^'^.^^'^'^^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) N0.351 OF 2010 PETITIONERS/ Abdul Mannan Khan & Another Appiicants <^ RESPONDENTS/ Plaintiff & Defendants Versus Chhattisgarh Wakf Board & Others (Writ Petition uhderArticle 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondent No.1. Shri B.P. Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondent No.3. Shri A.H. Syed, Advocate for the respondent No.4. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 26th day ofAugust, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to chalienge the legality and validity of the order dated 13-1-2010 (Annexure - P/8) passed by the Presiding Officer, Chhattisgarh Wakf Board, Raipur, in case No.4-A/2007 whereby and v\/hereunder the application filed by the petitioners herein under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been rejected. 3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the petitioners are the legal heirs of Haji Masood Khan and they Gujaredar of the wakf property. The respondent No.2 filed a civil suit before the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur, in which the petitioners moved an application for impleading themselves as necessary party, which was rejected by the authority below vide order dated 13-1-2010 in an illegai and arbitrary manner without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its letter and spirit. Thus, this petition. 4. At the very outset, Shri Sharma, learned counsei appearing for the respondent No.2, submits that so far as the right of the petitioners is concerned, there is no issue in the suit and their lega! rights, if t^^\ 1 O) "^^ Gowri any, stand protected. Learned counsel further submits that there is no intention to disturb the right ofthe petitioners. 5. The civit suit was filed by the respondent No.2 herein against the respondent No.1, as it then was, and respondent No.3 for declaration and permanent injunction. The atleged right of the Gujaredar was neither in question nor any relief was sought in the suit. Even, in the reply of respondents to the application filed by the petitioners for impleadment, the right ofthe petitioners has not been questioned and the same has been clarified by the respondent No.2 in the instant petition also, as setout in para 4 of this order. 6. The Supreme Court in Razia Begum v: Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others , \N[}'\\e considering the question of addition of party in an application under order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. held as under:- "13(2) That in a suit relating to property, in order that a person may be added as a party, he should have a direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest, in the subject-matter of the litigation;" 7. In J.J. Lal Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. M.R.Murali and anothes2 the Supreme Court has observed that in the case of title between two persons, the presence of third party is neither necessary for the decision of the question involved, nor his presence is necessary to enable the Court effectuatly and completely to adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the proceedings. 8. Since there is no dispute with regard to the right of the petitioners, 1 am of the considered opinion that the petitioners were neither necessary nor proper parties in the suit in question. Thus, there was no apparent error or perversity in the impugned order passed bythe Court below. 9. In the result, the writ petition being bereft of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge 1AIR1958SC886 2 (2002) 3 SCC 98 1