( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 178 OF 2008 Mohd. Ismail s/o. Babulal Shaikh .. Applicant Versus Mohd. Hanif s/o. Abbas Ali Birajdar & Anr. .. Respondents Shri S.S. Kazi, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Mujtaba Gulam Mustafa, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri J.R. Shaikh, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 04.08.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri S.S. Kazi for the applicant. This Civil Revision Application is directed against the rejection of application for amendment dated 12.08.2008 filed by the present appellant. The application is rejected by the Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, by his order dated 15.11.2008. The application was given in Wakf Suit No. 73 of 2007. ( 2 ) 2. By this amendment the appellant wants to add Shri M.Y Patel, Additional Collector at Dhule, Maharashtra, as defendant No.3 to the suit. The learned advocate for the applicant pointed out to me the pleadings in para 10-D of the plaint in which is it alleged that the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board had no authority to pass order dated 26.02.2005 and reduce the area of Wakf property from 1952 sq.ft. to 287.93 sq. mtr. and he had also no authority appoint defendant No.1 as Mutawali. Under the powers conferred by Section 90 of the Wakf Act, 1995, the Wakf Tribunal has added Wakf Board as party No.2 to the suit.It is argued before me that Shri M.Y. Patel, Additional Collector at Dhule, Mahrashtra, was the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board, who had passed the order mentioned in para 10-D of the plaint. In my considered opinion, the erstwhile Chief Executive Officer, when is being added as “M.Y. Patel,Additional Collector at Dhule,Maharashtra”, would not be a necessary party to the suit. Whatever orders were passed by him whether right or wrong, legal or otherwise can be subjected to challenge by making the Wakf Board as party and already Wakf Board is party to the suit as per the order of ( 3 ) the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the application was rightly dismissed. Hence, this Civil Revision Application is dismissed. 3. At this stage Adv. Shri S.S. Kazi argues that he wants to make amendment to the prayer clause for getting consequential reliefs in respect of averments made in para 10-D of the plaint. Adv. Shri Mujtaba Gulam Mustafa for respondent No.1 has objection for the same. The parties should verify whether earlier area of 1952 sq. ft. is correctly mentioned at the time of registration because subsequently the area does not appear to be reduced. It is mentioned as 287.93 sq.mtr. So, only there appears to be conversion from sq. ft. into sq. mtr. The parties to verify and then make application, if they so desire. 4. With aforesaid observations this Civil Revision Application is disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/cra178.08