HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.257 of 2008 ORDER: The order under challenge in this Revision proceedings is the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad in I.A.No. 578 of 2007 in O.S.No. 3 of 2003 dated 14.12.2007. I.A.No. 578 of 2007 was filed by the petitioners- plaintiffs in O.S.No. 3 of 2003 seeking amendment of the plaint. The Wakf Tribunal, by its order dated 14.12.2007, dismissed the petition. The petitioners-plaintiffs claim to be in possession of the Suit Schedule property as tenants of the wakf institution known as ‘Dargah Zohra Bee Saheba’ situated at Edi Bazar, Hyderabad under an oral agreement. It is their case that there exists a relationship of tenant and landlord between each of the petitioners and the said Dargah Zohra Bee Saheba. The Tribunal held that the petitioners’ request for change in the name of the wakf institution meant that they were seeking to establish the relationship of tenant and landlord with some other legal entity other than the one mentioned in their plaint; the change in the name of the wakf institution would change the legal person as the landlord which would change the very nature of the suit itself; and, in such circumstances, receiving documents for the purpose of marking them to change the legal person would not be proper; and the petition could not be maintained. The Wakf Tribunal refused amendment of the plaint on the ground that it would change the very nature of the Suit as the Suit was filed seeking injunction against the landlord-wakf institution known as ‘Dargah Zohra Bee Saheba’ and introducing some other as the landlord would change the very nature of the suit. Before this Court, Smt K.N.Vijayalakshmi, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would contend that the petitioners are all petty shop owners carrying on business in mulgies over small extents of 5 to 7 sq. yards of land; on coming to know that the wakf institution was not ‘Dargah Zohra Bee Saheba’ but ‘Masjid-e- Farooq-e-Azam’ near Dargah Hazrath Zohra Bee Saheba, situated at Kumarwadi, outside Katta Talab Mir Jumla, the present I.A. was filed; and the Wakf Tribunal had erred in refusing amendment of the cause-title and the pleadings. Learned Counsel would submit that no prejudice would be caused by arraying the wakf institution as the defendant in the Suit before the Wakf Tribunal; and that a liberal approach ought to have been adopted by the Wakf Tribunal in amendment of the pleadings. On the other hand, Sri M.A.Mujeeb, Learned Counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 7, would draw attention of this Court to the counter filed by them in this Revision proceedings, wherein respondents 3 to 7 stated that O.S.No. 3 of 2003 was filed aggrieved by the order of eviction dated 04.06.2002 passed by the A.P. State Wakf Board under Sub-section (3) of Section 54 of the Wakf Act, 1995; the petitioners had encroached on wakf property; in the representation made by them to the State Wakf Board they had mentioned the property as ‘Dargah Zohra Bee Saheba’; the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.No. 2279 of 1976, O.S.Nos. 430 and 1130 of 1990 and the XIV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad in A.S.Nos. 316 to 318 of 1997 had declared the property as ‘Dargah Zohra Bee Saheba’, Mosque Qutub Sahi known as ‘Mosque Farooq-e- Azam’ graveyard; and that the wakf property was within the area of Takia Hazarath Amrullah Shah Saheb at Edi Bazar, Hyderabad for which the third respondent was recognized as the mutawalli as per Mumtaqab No. Volume 11 Ward No.17, S.No.16, Page No.135. Learned Counsel contended that the I.A. and the Revision was only to drag on proceedings in O.S.No. 3 of 2003 which has been pending for more than seven years before the Wakf Tribunal. The jurisdiction which this Court exercises, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is supervisory. This Court would not sit in appeal over findings of fact recorded by Wakf Tribunals. The Wakf Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the I.A., if allowed, would change the very nature of the suit as it would result in a change in the landlord and tenant relationship, which the petitioners hitherto claimed between them and ‘Dargah Hazrath Bee Sahiba’. The order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any patent illegality nor has it resulted in manifest injustice necessitating interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:01-07-2010 usd