1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 186 OF 2009 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLN. BNO.106 OF 2008 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders 1. Heard Advocate Shri N.N. Chitlange, Advocate for the review applicant. 2. The first point raised before me is that the observations of this court in paragraphs 4 of the order dated 30.9.2009 disposing of Civil Revision Application No.106 of 2008 are being misinterpreted by the present respondents. It is pointed out that this court at the end of paragraph 4 of the said order drew attention of the learned Civil Judge to Sections 6,7,83 and 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995. 2 3. So far as observations in paragraph 4 of the said order dated 30.9.2009 are concerned, those are made necessarily for inviting attention of the trial court to certain provisions of law as his order that was impugned in the said Civil Revision Application was not clear as to whether he wanted to restrict his jurisdiction to a particular prayer clause or whether he is of the opinion that he has jurisdiction to decide all issues and grant all prayers and he appeared to have some wrong notion about jurisdiction of civil court. 3. Copies of the applications filed by Respondents herein dated 3rd and 4th November 2009 so also copy of Marathi daily "Deshonnati" dated 20.10.2009 are produced by the applicant which are taken on record and marked "X" collectively for the purpose of identification. 3 4. The order of this dated 30.9.2009 is very clear that the civil court is competent to decide the issue as to who was in actual possession of property and to grant injunction. If the plaintiff is in possession of property then he is entitled to protection of his possession until he is evicted by due process of law. As regards other reliefs claimed, this court observed that in view of provisions of law, the civil court would not have jurisdiction. It is argued that the order of this court is being misinterpreted by the respondents and they are contending that the suit is not maintainable. 5. As stated earlier, Advocate Shri Chitlange produced a copy of Marathi daily "Deshonnati" dated 20.10.2009 wherein news item was published by Respondents as if this court has declared that the property in question was the Wakf property. This court has considered the only issue of jurisdiction of the civil court raised 4 in the Appeal from Order. Whatever be the news item, the order of this court is very clear requiring no modification or alteration. 6. Learned Advocate Shri Chitlange also drew my attention to the orders passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Jalgaon in Appeal No.11 of 2001 decided on 31.12.2001, as also the order passed by the Secretary-Special Officer on Duty (Appeals), Revenue and Forest Department, Government of Maharashtra, on 24.8.1998 in Review Appln. No. DEV/101/Pra.Kra.17/L-4/Pra.Kra.678/AVR. Learned Advocate Shri Chitlange argued that the question whether it is a Wakf property or not, is already decided. However, those were the proceedings regarding mutation and Record of Rights under the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. 7. It is lastly argued before this court that there was special civil suit No.220 of 2001 between Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No.3. The question that 5 was raised in the suit was whether the sale deed dated 23.2.2000 executed in favour of defendants therein was without consideration, illegal and bogus. That was not lis between present applicant and respondents. 8. In my opinion, the order dated 30.9.2009 sought to be reviewed does not require any clarification, modification or review. Whatever be the interpretation of the order put by the Respondents herein or published in the news item referred to above, the said order is clear and the trial court is required to interpret the same properly. 9. There is no prima facie reason to entertain review application. 10. Review application is, therefore, dismissed and disposed of. Date:10/11/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/ra186.09