1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Cheta Ram Chhaniwal Vs. District Waqf committee & Ors. (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.11555/2010) S. B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Date of Judgment: August 20, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr.J.P. Goyal, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT: Aggrieved by the order dated 20.07.2010, passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tonk, whereby the learned Judge has allowed the application for impleadment filed by the District Waqf Committee ('the Waqf Committee', for short), the applicant No.1 before this Court, the petitioner has approached this Court. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.08.2009 the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant- respondent Nos.2 to 5 with the prayer that the respondents be restrained from raising any encroachment upon the public way. Before filing the written statement by the respondent Nos.2 to 2 5, on 20.08.2009 the Waqf Committee filed an application for being impleaded as defendant in the suit. On 03.11.2009, the petitioner filed reply to the application and submitted that the applicant is neither a necessary, nor a proper party in the suit. However, vide order dated 20.07.2010, the learned Judge allowed the application and impleaded the Waqf Committee as defendant No.5 in the suit. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. J.P. Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner had merely sought the relief against the Hifajat Committee and other private parties. The plaintiff did not seek any relief against the Waqf Committee. Therefore, the Waqf Committee was neither a necessary, nor a proper party. Hence, the learned Judge has erred in permitting the Waqf Committee to be impleaded as party-respondent in the case. Moreover, once the Waqf Committee has been impleaded, it will change the jurisdiction of the civil court as the Waqf Committee is likely to argue that the matter should be referred to the Waqf Tribunal and cannot be heard by a Civil court. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 3 According to the impugned order the case of the plaintiff-petitioner is that the people who are running the Kabristan, tried to increase its area by constructing a boundary wall which allegedly encroaches upon the public way. Since the Kabristan is under the supervision of the Waqf Committee, obviously the Waqf Committee's interest could be adversely affected, in case the suit were allowed in favour of the petitioner. Although the plaintiff-petitioner may not have sought any relief against the Waqf Committee, but nonetheless, the interest of the Waqf Committee could be adversely affected. Thus, naturally it has a right to be heard before the court. Whether the impleadment of the Waqf Committee would affect the jurisdiction of the court is an issue which cannot be decided at this moment. This is an issue, which can be decided by the learned trial court, in case the said issue were agitated before it. Therefore, this Court does not find any perversity, or any illegality in the impugned order dated 20.07.2010. Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S. CHAUHAN) J. Manoj solanki