1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 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 Shri Mujtaba Gulam Mustafa, Advocate for applicant. Shri V.D.Hon, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri N.E. Deshmukh for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 1. This civil revision application is filed being aggrieved by common order passed by learned III, Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, below Exhibits 1 and 49 in Special Civil Suit No.282 of 2007 on 15.4.2008, whereby he has held that he has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by present Respondents-original plaintiffs. The copy of the plaint is produced on record and the prayer clauses read:- 2 "A. The suit be decreed with costs. B. The defendants be directed by a decree of maqndatory injunction to withdraw the application / proceedings initiated by them before any Authority like Wakf Board, City Survey, Municipal Corporation and Revenue or any other authority making the suit properties and in general S.No. 237/B a subject matter of such application/proceeding. C. The defendants be restrained by decree of perpetual injunction from causing interference and obstructions in the peaceful possession, occupation, enjoyment and ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit properties, personally or through any one claiming on their behalf either by misrepresenting the suit properties and/or by misguiding, cheating or 3 false representation before any authority-Revenue, Municipal, City Survey or the Wakf Authority. D. It be declared that any illegal acts on the part of defendants, as a result of which, any Authority such as the Wakf, Revenue, City Survey or Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon has passed any order affecting the rights of plaintiffs to the suit properties and to which the plaintiffs are not made party and not given opportunity of hearing, is illegal and not binding upon the plaintiffs. E. Any other just and equitable relief to which the plaintiffs are found entitled to be granted and oblige. " 2. Prayer clauses B and D on their faces are not tenable in law inasmuch as no mandatory injunction in terms of 4 prayer clause B can be granted by Civil Court nor declaration in terms of prayer Clause D can be granted. The civil court has no jurisdiction to give mandatory order directing the defendants to withdraw applications or proceedings initiated by them before any various authorities. Prayer clause B is also blanket prayer and therefore not sustainable in law. Similarly, it does not appear that the declaration is sought in respect of any particular order passed by particular authority or forum. If the property is declared as Wakf property, the same is a judgment in rem binding on all concerned and the provisions of Wakf Act will govern the field. Even in respect of prayer clause (C), Civil Court can grant only part of that prayer clause and not in its entirety. It cannot enter into the question whether the the order or relief was obtained by cheating or misrepresentation before the Authority. Civil Court cannot act as appellate or revisional authority or a court with writ jurisdiction. The only point that 5 can be decided by the civil court is whether the defendants should be restrained by decree of perpetual injunction from causing interference or obstruction in peaceful occupation and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit property. That too, such injunction can be granted subject to limitation that injunction shall continue until plaintiffs-respondents are evicted by due process of law. This is because, it is stated across the Bar that the revision petitioners have filed proceedings under Section 54 of the Wakf Act,1995 for removal of encroachment before Maharashtra Wakf Board bearing case No.54/37/2007 & MRVM /Enquiry/2007/6257/07. We find reference to the same in para 32 of Written Statement filed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 10. 3. It is the case of present revision petitioners that they are the members of the managing committee of Khwajamiya Dargah Masjid and Arabi Madarsa, Jalgaon and Chistiya Arabi Madarsa, Jalgaon. The 6 said Dargah and Arabi Madarsa are registered as Wakf and disputed property is registered as Wakf property. We find contention to that effect in para 32 of the written statement of Defendant Nos.1 and 10. In paragraph 2 of the written statement the averment in paragraph 2 of the plaint are denied and it is stated that plaintiff No.1 was originally occupying 10'x20' area which she had encroached and she falsely claims the area of 32'x100'. In fact, she is also not in possession of the same as in the said area there are main road to mosque, Vajukhana, Taratkhan and Hujara of Imam Saheb and also varanda of Masjit ad- measuring 15'x20'. In para 2 of the Written Statement,it is also stated that defendant Nos.1 to 10 are the managing committee members of the Wakf in question. 4. Therefore if we consider nature of dispute between the parties, it is obvious that the Civil Court will have jurisdiction only with regard to issue of perpetual injunction in the light of 7 observations made above and nothing more than that. This Court has made all these things clear, because the order passed by the learned trial court judge is not clear as to whether he wants 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. As is evident from the impugned judgment and paragraph 4 in particular, it appears that the learned trial court judge has some wrong notion about jurisdiction of civil court. Attention of the learned Civil Judge is invited to Sections 6,7, 83 and 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995. 5. With observations as above, Civil Revision Application is disposed of. Date:30/09/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/cra106.08