1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 19. CRA/168/2008 ( SYED AYUB SYED YOUSUF V/S SAMBHAJI MADHU GAIKWA D) ---------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Ms. Fatema Kazi, Adv., h/f Mr. S.S.Kazi, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Anjanwatikar, Adv., h/f Mr. A.D.Shinde, Adv., for respondent no.3. Mr. M.B.W.Khan, Adv., for respondent no.6. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:11/1/2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. The present revision is by one of the devotees of the said trust. Application Exh.5 was moved by the original plaintiff ( present applicant) seeking injunction against the defendants. Learned Presiding Officer, Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad, 2 considering the documentary evidence came to the prima facie conclusion that no case for grant of injunction was made out. I do not see any irregularity or illegality in the said order of the learned Judge. He has assigned reasons in paragraph no.9 of the very order. No interference is called for in the rejection of Exh.5, as the subject matter was already decided in another litigation between the same parties, which has been dismissed on 31.7.1993, holding therein that the suit property is not trust property but it belonged to private persons. 3. So far as deciding the main suit is concerned expeditiously, I do not see that such prayer now made by the learned Counsel for the original plaintiff is unjust - it is rather innocuous. 4. In the situation, Civil Revision Application is dismissed, however, the learned Presiding Officer, Maharashtra Wakf 3 Tribunal, Aurangabad, shall ensure to dispose of the suit within a period of one year from receiving the record. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/168-08cra