( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 45 OF 2010 Syed Afzaluddin Nehri s/o. Syed Mazharuddin Nehri .. Applicant Versus Syed Riyazuddin Nehri s/o. Syed Sirajuddin Nehri and ors. .. Respondents Shri A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. Farheen Qureshi, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri M.S. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 16.06.2010 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri A.P. Bhandari for the applicant, Adv. Mrs. Farheen Qureshi for respondent No.1 and Adv. Shri M.S. Choudhari for respondent No.4. The main grievance made in this revision petition is that respondent No.4 is added to Application No. 5 of 2002, pending before the Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad, by order dated 12.01.2010 without hearing the revision applicant on application at Exh.24. Application ( 2 ) Exh. 24 is at Exh. “E” of the Revision Application, filed by respondent No.4, wherein he claimed that he is interested person in Wakf property and its management. In-fact, it is not disputed that he is cousin of the revision applicant so also respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and coming from same family. He also stated that he wanted to file say and collusive order is likely to obtained from the Tribunal and therefore he may be impleaded as party to the proceeding. Said application was filed on 14.12.2009. On said application say is filed by present respondent No.1, who was applicant before the Tribunal and he denied that he was trying to obtain collusive order as claimed in the application. But he stated that he has no objection to make respondent No.4 as party. The Court, in view of said submission by the original applicant allowed the application to add respondent No.4 as party and this was challenged in the present revision petition. 2. It may be noted that present revision applicant was not original party to the application and it is admitted position that he was directed to be added as party with respondent No.3 as per order passed by this Court in Civil Revision Application No. 22 of 2004 decided on 6th October, ( 3 ) 2009. It is not disputed that accordingly application was made on 04.01.2010 and on same day the present revision applicant was made party. Thereafter, notice was issued to the present revision applicant and his advocate appeared on 12.01.2010. In other words, the advocate for the revision applicant was present when the order was passed by the Tribunal on 12.01.2010. In-fact, Adv. Mrs. Farheen Qureshi submitted that she herself was present before the Tribunal and the Presiding Officer even asked the advocate for the applicant if he had anything to say. Thereafter, the order was passed. The advocate for the applicant Shri Bhandari denied the same. The basic question is whether there was any prejudice to the revision applicant by the order of addition of the party. One thing is clear that since before 04.01.2010 the applicant was not party to the application, respondent No.4 in his application did not make him party. In absence of any prejudice and in view of reasons given in the application for adding himself as party by respondent No. 4, in my opinion, this revision application has no merit and the same is dismissed. 3. Interim relief stands vacated. ( 4 ) 4. Adv. Mrs. Qureshi produces on record certified copy of Roznama, which is taken on record and marked “X”. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/JUN10/cra45.10