1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.463 OF 2007. Sports Authority of India, through its' Assistant Director, University Campus, Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus Hussein Baig S/o Hira Baig and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.B.Agrawal, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shaikh Shamsuddin, advocate for the Respondent NO.1. Mr.V.D.Gunale, advocate for the Respondent No.2. Mr.M.B.W.Khan, advocate for the Respondent No.3 absent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 13.01.2010. PER COURT 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 13.11.2006, rendered by the learned Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad, whereby temporary injunction is 2 clamped on the petitioner. 2. The Respondent No.1 filed suit (RCS No. 160/2006), wherein he filed application for temporary injunction vide Exh.5. The case of the Respondent No.1 was that he is care taker (Mujawar) of the Dargah (called Hazrat Syed Sadat) situated within the campus of University premises. He asserted that the suit property as described in the claim clause is the Wakf property and is the premises of said Dargah. He has been appointed as Mujawar by the Wakf Board to look after the maintenance and up-keep of the said Dargah. He alleged that the petitioner along with other defendants obstructed in the lawful possession of the suit property and as such claimed temporary injunction. 3. After hearing both the sides, the temporary injunction order came to be passed. The Tribunal found that there is tomb in existence at the place of Dargah. It was also noticed that the Respondent No.1 was appointed as a care taker by the Wakf Board. The parties admitted the 3 existence of structure of the tomb at the place. A prima facie case was made out by the Respondent No.1 and, therefore, injunction application was allowed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned order, I find that the petitioner has suffered the injunction order for approximately three (3) years. It would be just and proper to expedite hearing of the suit before the Wakf Tribunal instead of giving any particular finding on the disputed questions of facts. It is well settled that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised, wherein if disputed questions of facts are involved. It also appears that the existence of tomb is not in dispute and the suit property described is only of 40x60 ft. area. Considering these aspects, I deem it proper to direct the Tribunal to decide the suit proceedings within a period of six (6) months as far as possible, and to consider the rival contentions on their own merits. This is also necessary in view of the fact that U/s 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995, alternate 4 remedy by way of Revision is provided for and the same has not been availed by the petitioner. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. The Wakf Tribunal shall, however, decide the suit proceedings within a period of six (6) months as far as possible. The Wakf Tribunal shall independently consider the rival contentions and decide the suit on its own merits without being influenced by the existence of the tomb at the place and shall also consider the documentary evidence that the petitioner may furnish in support of its claim. The parties are directed to appear before the Wakf Tribunal on 6.2.2010, which is already a date fixed, stated at the Bar. The parties shall not change the nature of the property in the meanwhile and during pendency of the suit. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp46307