cra34.11 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 34 OF 2011 1 Mangilal s/o Manikchand Sethiya Age 75 years,Occ. Business, R/o. Khaderabad Jalna, Marwadi Galli, Tq. And district Jalna 2 Amarchand s/o Manoharlal Jain, Age 78 years, Occ. Business & Agri. R/o. As above ...Petitioners Versus 1 Sk. Babu s/o Shaikh Madar, Age 90 years, Occ. Nil, R/o. Pensionpoora Jalna, Through GPA No. 2 and 3 2 Sk. Bholu s/o Shaikh Babu Age 60 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Panshandra Tq. And district Jalna 3 Sk. Baba s/o Shaikh Babu Age 50 years,Occ. Agriculture, R/o. As above 4 Sk. Dada s/o Shaikh Babu Age 40 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. As above 5 Rukmani Devi w/o Jagannath (Died L.Rs). Hariprasad Jagannath Devidas, Age 59 years, Occ. Business, 6 Orayaga Devi w/o Mohanlal Age 45 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Nehra Road, Tq. And District Jalna cra34.11 -2- 7 Bhagirti Devi w/o Narayandas Age 50 years, Occ. Household, R/o. As above 8 Jamna Devi @ Savitri Devi w/o Ganga Kishor, Age 40 years, Occ. Household, R/o. As above 9 Gangabishan s/o Laxminarayan Saraf Age 45 years, Occ. Business, R/o. As above 10 Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs Panchakki Aurangabad Through Chief Executive Officer ...Respondents ..... Mr. P.V. Mandlik, senior counsel h/f Mr. Amol S. Gandhi, advocate for the petitioners Mr. Y.M.Khan, advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr. M.K. Deshpande, advocate for respondent No.5 Mr. Y.B. Pathan, advocate for respondent No.10 ..... CORAM: R.M. BORDE, J. DATED: 28TH MARCH, 2011 JUDGMENT :- 1 Heard counsel for respective parties. 2 Rule. With consent of parties, matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3 The petitioners herein are challenging order dated 7.2.2011 passed below Exh.14 by the Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad. Application Exh.14 is cra34.11 -3- tendered in MARJI No. 2 of 2011 by respondents herein for allowing them to produce on record certain documents. While considering application Exh.14, the Tribunal has taken a note of the fact of violation of orders at the hands of the petitioners herein and has proceeded to direct attachment of the suit property. The Tribunal has also issued direction in respect of communication of order dated 13.10.2010 and 28.1.2011 to police authorities. 4 Shri Mandlik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the order passed by the Tribunal below Exh.14 directing attachment of suit property is without application of mind. It is contended that Exh.14 is an application requesting the Tribunal to take on record certain documents, whereas the order passed on consideration of said application is in respect of attachment of property for alleged violation of status quo order. 5 Counsel appearing for the respondents are unable to point out as to what is propriety in passing the impugned order while considering application at Exh.14 by the Tribunal. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed out order passed by the Tribunal on 13.10.2010, whereby Tribunal has directed the parties to maintain status-quo until further orders. It is the contention of the respondents that petitioners herein have alienated the property in cra34.11 -4- violation of the order of status-quo and complaint is made to the Tribunal in that regard and request is also made for taking action against the petitioners for committing breach of the order of status-quo passed by the Tribunal earlier in MARJI No. 2 of 2011. It is contended that the Tribunal has taken a note of the act of the petitioners in disposing of property during continuation of order of status-quo passed by the Tribunal and has issued direction in respect of attachment of property. 6 The Tribunal ought to have considered application at Exh.1 and after extending opportunity of hearing to the parties to submit their contentions should have proceeded to pass appropriate orders for alleged breach of the orders of status-quo committed by the petitioners. Consideration for attachment of the property on account of breach or violation of the orders passed by the Tribunal are different and parties should have been called upon to address the court in that regard. The Tribunal however, has committed patent irregularity in passing order of attachment of the property while considering application Exh.14. Order passed by the Tribunal therefore, being erroneous on the face of record, needs to be quashed and set aside and the same is accordingly quashed and set aside. Civil Revision application is thus allowed. Order passed by the Tribunal on 7.2.2011 below Exh.14 is quashed and set aside. The Tribunal shall have cra34.11 -5- liberty to pass appropriate orders on consideration of application at Exh.1. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( R.M. BORDE. J.) rlj/