sy HIGHCOURtOFCHHATnSGARHAtBIIASPUR CIVILREVISION N0. 29 OF 2010 APPLICANT DEFENDANT N0. 1 RESPONDENT PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT N0. 2 2 AND3 Chhattisgarh State Wakf Board, through its Chief Executive Officer, Dr. S.A. Farooqui, aged about 49 years, S/o Shri A.s. Farooqui, C- 12, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (CG) Versus Raiique Ahmed Khah, aged about 79 years, S/o late Haji Mohammed Masood Khan, R/o Juni Line, Bilaspur, Tahsil and Disttt. Bilaspur, (CG) at present Flat No. 11.3, Utkarsh Niman, Mangalwari Bazar, Sadar Nagpur (MH) State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Dharmik Nyas and Dharmswa, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Intezamia Committee, Jaraa Masjid (Wald) Bilha, Bilaspur through Mohammed Sharif aged about 72 years, S/o late Ghafoor Khan, R/o Om Nagar, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur (CG) Vice President and Patom of Intezariiia Committee. SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J. PRESENT:- Shri Prateek Sharma, Adv. for the applicant. Shri B.P. Sharma, Adv. for respondent no. 1. Shri G.D. Vaswani, Govt. Adv. for the State. Shri A.H. Syed, Adv. for respondent No. 3. 0,R AL O RD ER (20-4-2010) 1. Legality and propriety of the order dated 23-2-2010 passed by Wakf Tribunal, Raipur in case of 4-A/2007 is under ' assail in the instant revision under proviso to Section 83(9) of the Wakf Board Act, 1995. 2. Facts of the case in brief are as under:- 3. Plaintiff / non-applicant No. 1 filed a suit in the year 1990 for declaration that the suit properties notified in the official Gazette dated 25-8-1989 are his predecessor's personal properties and not Wakf Alal Aulad. The applicant in its written statement denied the allegatioos of the plaint •uoisiAaj siq^ 3QU3H '^ireoTidd^ aq^ Aq pajjajsjd u.Ofya^ddv aq^ pa^osfsj paugnduii japjo apiA {eunquj, p^LUB^^ 'uopBondd^ aAoq^ avft psig paq guipaaoojd aq^ Aapp o^ japjo ui i.ireondd'e aq^ fei^ punojg sv^ uo yiB3r[ddv-viou av^ Xq pasoddo SBM Ja/''ejd aAoqs sqj, -pjeog pfSf^ 'd'Vi 3'IV u-io-y ^i-reoitdd^ sq; A:q paApoaj ^ou SJSM Asq^ janjea ;Bq^ punojS aures avft uo iBunquj, sq; sjojsq papj SBM •o'd'O JO IST uopoag vffitA pvai v-I 3VQi 8 -tsp-io jspun pjoosj: uo s^usCTnoop oi^qnd gupfe^ joj viorfes^ddv wa ure§B jsyeajaqj, "-/OOO'OT "sy jo ^soo jo -^uaui&ad o^ loafqns •o-cro sq^ jo T:ST: uoi^oag q^TA pB9J yi 3InSI 8 J3P-10 -ispun pajjsjsjd uop'eoiidd^ sjuBOT{ddB sip paAvo^ '^eunquj, sqi jo japjo aq^ spiSB ^ss 600S "AON p^ES pa^'ep JSp^o apiA •»jnoosiqj, •^jnoo siq; ajojaq 600Z/2,IZS "ON (2,22 )'d'A Suijesq Bipui jo uopn^suoQ 3Vft jo ^gg spRJV -ispun uoi^pad pajjsjajd ^ireo^dd'e 3VQ. '^.sureg^ SJS^J, '^Bunquj, SL;^ Aq pai.osfoj S'BM uop'BOT^dd^ preg -s^uauinoop onqnd SJB pire p-reog PTBM "d'W 3T-[1 uioj:j psApoaj Apusoaj aj3M ';i o^ SuipjoooB i,[OTi-[M pjooaj uo s^uamnoop Sm5[B^ joj uop'eoiiddB T-re psiy ^TjeoiiddB sqj, -ssnssT {BuopippB jo Sunxrejj joj paxy SBM Wffevi aq; pire 6002-8-2,1 uo tuauia^B^s usnuM s^i papj g 'ou iLreoiidd-B-uo^ 'yBunquj, avp. sjojsq §UTpssoojd sq^ ui fjsd asfB^ 01 ps^imjad STSM. g -0^ ^.LreaTidda-uou sq^ pue 600S-2,-6S ps^P JapJO apiA tJnoQ siq^ ^q paMo^ SBM g -ON lireondd'e-uou avp. A^q pajjajajd UOISTASJ HAp sqj^ -^eunquj, aq^ ajojsq s^jed xs pspsosjd SBM pire g -ou ^.Lrepusjsp SB pappB A'puanbasqns S^M g •ou ^UBonddB-uof<i •^i a.iojaq 2,002-0 T-0T uo readd^ o^ leunquj, p[ef^ q-regspiBqqo aq^ Aq ps^oajip S-BM ^ireoTidda sqj, '^.OOS -re3;c 3II:l ul Suiuopounj PS^JB^S iBunquj, J?[BM t.IJeSsTn'Bqqo 'qjegsinBqqo jo a^B^g 3^ JO UOpBUIJOJ .[31.JV 'S66T 'W P(BM 3LI^ JO 30-tOJ O^UI SUITHOO ja^ P.TBOQ p[B^ •c["]/M o^ PSJJSJSUBJ^ SBM JS^BUI sqj, -AsAjns jo auii^ sq^ fB uoisssssod UT SJSM oqM suosjad si-t^ o^ SuLresqjo ^iun^joddo ire guTpjojjs JSI.JB pue XaAjns anp ja-i.jB p3L[siiqnd SBA UOI^BOTJT^OU av^ fevQ ps^iuiqns puB s n^, ^ ia. V S :\^JS^/ '•^-s.:^-'' 7. 8. Shri Prateek Sharma, leamed counsel for the applicanf would contend that the documents for which leave of the Tribunal for admitting those documents in evidence was sought are public documents, earller they were not in possession of the applicant, are relevant for just decision of the case and leamed Tribunal has erred in rejecting the application. Shri B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the non-applicant would submit that leamed Tribunal has rightly rejected the application as the applicant had failed to assign good reason for admission of the above documents. He would further contend that the applicant is deliberately delaying disposal of the case, except the evidence of defendant No. 2, evidence of parties has already been recorded, now if the documents are admitted in the case, it will reopen the matter and would further delay its disposal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. Although Shri Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant could not assign good reason for admission of documents filed by the applicants so belatedty but looking to the fact that the documents proposed to be filed by the applicants are the documents from the official record, are relevant for just decision of the case, suit is still at the stage of evidence, the trial Court should have allowed the applicant's application and permitted him to file documents as per list by imposing appropriate cost and conditions upon the applicant. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The application preferred by the applicant under Order 8 Rule 1A read with Section 151 of C.P.C. is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- by the next date of hearing payable to the non-applicant No. 1/plaintiff. 9. As agreed to by the counsel for the parties, the parties ar&: directed to appearbefore theTrtbunal on 29-4-2010 and leamed Tribunal shall allowthe respondent No. 1 to fUe the documents in rebuttal if any, on or before the next date of hearing, shall permit the plaintiff to examine any additional evidence, if he feels necessary to exaxnine him; shall perm.it the applicant to examine only four witnesses namely Dr. S.A. Faruqui and Mannan IChan and two others. Trial Court is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible preferably within IVa month from 29-4-2010. 10. The revision is allowed. _-__ _ - Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge R •gS^^^^S^'-