1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 15 OF 2010 Islamuddin s/o Bahuddin Shaikh ...Applicant Versus Maharashtra State Board of Wakf and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. Shaikh Ashpak T. Patel, advocate for the applicant Mr. M.B.W. Khan, advocate respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr. R.N. Bharaswadkar, advocate for respondent No.3 ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 12TH OCTOBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 This Civil Revision Application is filed challenging the order dated 29.12.2009 passed below Exh.5 in application No.56 of 2009 by the Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the applicant invited my attention to the findings recorded by the Wakf Tribunal and submitted that though the present applicant was party in the proceeding before the Chief Executive Officer, Wakf Board, the Tribunal has recorded 2 contrary finding that the applicant was not party and had no locus to file any proceedings before the Tribunal. Learned counsel also invited my attention to the other findings recorded by the Tribunal and submitted that the perverse findings have been recorded by the Tribunal. The main contention of the counsel is that though the applicant was very much party in the proceeding before the Chief Executive Officer and though he participated in the said proceeding, the Wakf Tribunal has wrongly observed that the applicant was not party before the Wakf Board. Therefore, he submits that this Civil Revision Application deserves to be allowed. 3 Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2 submitted that mainly on two grounds the application of the applicant has been rejected by the Tribunal. Firstly, the applicant was not party before the Wakf Board and secondly the proceedings are not maintainable. It is further submitted that the present applicant had no locus to challenge the order passed by the Wakf Board before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. is not maintainable since the suit itself is not maintainable. Learned counsel further invited my attention to sub Section 2 of Section 83 of Wakf Act and submitted that the Civil Revision Application is devoid of any merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. 3 4 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submitted that since the finding is recorded that the applicant was not party before the Wakf Board, in revisional jurisdiction, this court cannot entertain revision and reverse the finding of facts recorded by the Tribunal. 5 I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel appearing for the respective parties. The Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad, while answering point Nos. 1 to 4, has held that it is not disputed fact from the rival contention of the parties that Sunni Jammatul Muslimeen Trust/Wakf having its office at Dargah Masjid Compound Malad (West), Mumbai is not registered trust under the Bombay Public trust Act by the Assistant Charity Commissioner or by the Wakf Act, 1995. Therefore, application under section 83(2) of the Wakf Act 1995 against the respondent is not maintainable in law for want of registration of the Wakf institution as per Section 87 of the Wakf Act. The Tribunal has also referred body of entire Exh.1, main application in Exh. 5 temporary injunction application filed by the applicant and observed that nowhere the applicant has given his case that the present proceeding i.e. application under Section 83 sub-Section 2 of the Wakf Act has filed being interested Muslim person in the Wakf institution under section 3(k) of Wakf Act, 1995. Moreover, the applicant in main application Exh.1 below the name of the applicant in the title cause of the parties, 4 vaguely stated the trustee mutawalli of Sunni Jammatul Mislimeen Trust/Wakf having its office at Dargah Masjid Malad (West), Mumbai. It is further observed that there are vague pleadings in the application. However, the statements that the applicant was or is trustee/Mutawalli of the said institution at any time either recognized by the Assistant Charity Commissioner under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 is not supported by documentary proof. The Tribunal has also observed that no documents were produced by the applicants to show that they were either trustees or Mutawallis of the said institution. Therefore, the Tribunal has observed that in absence of any documentary proof, the applicant prima facie failed to establish that he is Trustee/Mutawalli of Sunni Jammatul Muslimeen Trust/Wakf, Malad (West) Mumbai. 6 The Tribunal has also recorded the findings that the proceedings which are challenged before the Tribunal does not show that the applicant was party to the proceeding before the Wakf Board. The Tribunal has also observed that the main proceeding is not suit at all under Section 83(1), (5) or under Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995 but the main application of the applicant in the form of Summary Appeal under section 83(2) of the Wakf Act filed by the applicant against the impugned order. Therefore, Exh.5 i.e. application of the application under order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. is not maintainable. 7 Learned counsel appearing for the applicant was at pains to 5 argue that the applicant herein was party before the Wakf Tribunal. In support of his contention he invited my attention to page 61 of the compilation and submitted that the Chief Executive Officer, Wakf Board has taken a note that on 2.6.2009 both the parties were present and as third party namely Janab Rafique Tayyab has appeared through advocate Janab Hashmi. According to the counsel for the applicant, the present applicant was party alongwith Janab Rafique Tayyab before the Wakf Board. He further invited my attention to the page 75 of the compilation and more particularly clause 16 of his application and submitted that since the respondent No.5 was not available for signature, hence they were arrayed as such. From entire arguments of the counsel for the applicant or pleadings in Civil Revision Application, there is nothing convincing to take a different view than taken by the Tribunal. From reading document at Exh. F i.e. the proceeding before the Wakf Board, at pages 59 to 68, there is nothing which could indicate that the present applicant was party before the Wakf Board. Except page 61 and 75, the counsel has not brought anything to the notice of this Court. 7 Apart from the locus of the applicant to file application before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has also recorded a finding that the revision petitioner has not placed any document on record to show that he is Trustee/Mutawalli of the said institution. The another aspect of the matter is that the proceeding in which the application was filed by the 6 applicant, under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 was not maintainable, as held by the Tribunal. 8 Taking into consideration the grounds taken in the Civil Revision Application, the entire material placed on record and keeping in mind the limited scope of the Revision, in my view, no case is made out by the applicant to upset the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has taken a reasonable and plausible view. No infirmity is pointed out in the impugned judgment and order. Civil Revision Application is devoid of any merits and the same stands dismissed. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/