FAO No.748 of 2009 - 1 – IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.748 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 09.03.2009 **** Ramesh Chand . . . . Appellant VS. Haryana Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt through Chief Executive Officer, Haryana Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt. and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Aman Behl, Advocate for Mr.Hari Om Attri, Advocate for the appellant **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. This appeal arises out of an order passed by Additional District Judge, Rewari, dated 24.9.2008 on an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (in short ‘CPC’) for temporary injunction in a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. The learned Court below dismissed the application for temporary injunction on one of the grounds that before filing the suit, the plaintiff did not serve notice as contemplated under Section 89 of the Punjab Wakf Board Act (in short ‘the Act’). Section 89 of the Act is reproduced as under : “Notice of suits by parties against Board – No suit shall be instituted against the Board in respect of FAO No.748 of 2009 - 2 – any act purporting to be done by it in pursuance of this Act or of any rules made hereunder, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to, or left at, the office of the Board stating the cause of action the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left”. The learned Court below also followed a decision of this Court titled as “Arya Prithinidhi Sabha (Punjab) Jullundur Now Haryana Sirsa Versus Punjab wakf Board, Ambala Cantt. and others” 2000(1) PLR 92, to hold that Section 89 of the Act is mandatory, therefore, in the absence of two months notice, suit is not maintainable. Besides, the learned Court below also found that neither there is any prima facie case nor balance of convenience or irreparable loss in favour of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any error in the order of the learned Court below in respect of the effect of non-compliance of the provision of Section 89 of the Act. Thus, in the absence of two months statutory notice, the suit itself, filed by the plaintiff, is not maintainable. Therefore, no injunction could have been granted by the Court below and the application has been rightly dismissed. No other point has been raised. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is dismissed being without any merit. No costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) March 09, 2009 JUDGE vivek