1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.62/2010. Mohammed Farooq s/o Mohammed Sadeq & Anr. Vs. Mohammed Azam Mohammed Sarwar and Anr.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.RP Adgaonkar, Adv. h/for Mr. GD Shaikh, Adv. for petitioners; Mr.SAG Qureshi, Adv. for Respondent No.1. Mr.SB Khan, Adv. h/for Mr. MBW Khan for Respondent No.2; *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 19 th November, 2010. ... 1) Heard. 2) Counsel holding for Mr. GD Shaikh prays for accommodation on personal grounds, opposed by Mr. Qureshi, representing for Respondent No.1 – Mohd.Azam. Mr.Qureshi submits, several grounds are put forward by counsel for appellant for getting the matter adjourned and this is a new ground of ill-health of Mr.Shaikh to again seek adjournment. He urged, considering the record, necessary orders be passed. 3) Respondent No.1 – Mohd. Azar, filed Wakf suit No.42/2007, wherein, appellant – Mohd. Farooq moved an application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC, seeking return of the plaint. 2 4) Learned Presiding Officer of the Wakf Tribunal did not agree as the proceedings are under Section 83(1), 85 and 6 of Wakf Act, 1995. The learned Judge found the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction. 5) Mr.Qureshi has also tendered before me a photo state certified copy of Judgment and order dated 24th July, 1990, in RCS No.229/1989 moved by Marathwada Wakf Board, declaring the property as grave yard near Dargah Mastan Shahwali Gadipura, Nanded, admeasuring east-west 200’ and north-south 250’, passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded. Mr.Qureshi submits this judgment has reached finality. 6) In the light of above situation, the order under challenge dated 25th November, 2010 does not call for any interference. CRA lacks merits, dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/