1 W.P. No.7516/11. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7516 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.P.G.Godhamgaonkar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.A.G.Qureshi, advocate for Respondent No.4. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 28.09.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The present Writ Petitioner assails the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in RCS No.242/2010. The said Civil suit was filed by the present Respondent No.1 against the other Respondents herein for multifarious reliefs as detailed in the plaint. The said suit came to be decreed. 3. Mr.Godhamgaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit property is a wakf property. The said suit is a vexatious suit. The Court could not have entertained the suit in 2 W.P. No.7516/11. respect of said wakf property as it inherently lacks jurisdiction. Even the petitioners have filed suit before the Wakf Tribunal and had obtained the orders of injunction which subsequently are stayed by this Court in CRA. Mr.Godhamgaonkar, learned counsel contends that if the plaint is vexatious and meritless, it is required to be rejected at its threshold U/o 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "T.Arivandandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal and another" reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2421. The learned counsel further contends that this Court can issue writ of certiorari against the said decree passed by the Civil Court. For the said purpose, the learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others" reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 3044. Mr.Godhamgaonkar, learned counsel further states that the suit is an abuse of process of law and in such circumstances, the existence of alternate remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of this Court. 4. The judgment and decree is passed by the Civil Court in RCS No.242/2010, a substantive remedy of appeal is provided against the said judgment and decree before the appellate forum U/s 96 of the C.P.C. Even if the petitioners are not parties to the said suit, if the petitioners show that they have interest in the subject matter then with the leave of the appellate Court the petitioners can 3 W.P. No.7516/11. prefer appeal. Even the petitioners have filed suit before the Wakf Tribunal and the same is subjudiced. Necessary reliefs can be claimed and prosecuted in the said suit before the Wakf Tribunal. The suit is already decreed by the Civil Court. As such this Court in its writ jurisdiction can not embark on the investigation of facts. In a case of "T.Arivandandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal and another" referred supra, the suit was pending and the question was whether the plaint can be rejected U/o 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. When a decree has been passed by the Civil Court and the same would involve the investigation into the facts, this Court would not entertain a Writ Petition, more particularly, when a substantive remedy of appeal is provided U/s 96 of the C.P.C. Even if petitioners are not parties to the suit, the same would not preclude the petitioners to seek relief before the appellate Court by filing appeal with leave of the Appellate Court, if they prove that they are interested persons in the subject matter and are affected by the decree. 5. In light of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.28.09.2011. asp/office/wp7516.11 4 W.P. No.7516/11.