Civil Revision No. 1221 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1221 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.08.2010 Haryana Wakf Board, Ambala ....Petitioner Versus Sanjay and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: -Mr. Sandeep Punchi, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the judgment dated 14.9.2009, passed by the learned Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Punjab Wakf Act, 1995, at Karnal. The plaintiff/petitioner i.e. Haryana Wakf Board Ambala Cantt filed a suit for possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction by pleading therein, that defendants No.1 to 3 were the licencee of the Board, who had taken the Mosque on licence for its maintenance etc. The case of the petitioner further was, defendants No.1 to 3 in connivance with defendants No.4 and 5 were taking steps to demolish the tomb of the Mosque, therefore, they were liable to be restrained from committing illegal activities. Injunction was sought in a suit for possession as a consequential relief. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence and the pleadings, recorded a finding, that the suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner is itself defective, as no averments were made that defendant/respondents No.4 and 5 were in possession. Civil Revision No. 1221 of 2010 (O&M) -2- In the written statement stand was taken that defendants No.4 and 5 were in possession. In spite of the stand taken by the defendant/respondents, plaintiff took no steps to amend the pleadings to claim the effective relief, against persons in possession i.e. defendants No.4 and 5. The learned Tribunal in view of the defective pleadings, ordered the dismissal as defendants No.4 and 5, were held to be in possession of the property, and no relief was claimed against them though impleaded as party. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the impugned order cannot be sustained, in view of the stand taken by defendants No.4 and 5 in their written statement, that they were in possession of the property. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, was that once it was admitted by defendants No.4 and 5 that they were in possession of the property, the suit should have been decreed. This contention is totally misconceived. It is well settled law, that the plaintiff has to stand on its own legs, and not take benefit of the weakness of the defendants. Once, no averments were made with regard to defendants No.4 and 5 being in possession nor any relief of possession was claimed against them, the learned Tribunal was justified in dismissing the suit for possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction, on account of defective pleadings. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 26, 2010 R.S.