C.R. No. 606 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 606 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: February 10, 2009 Surinder Singh .. Petitioner v. Punjab Wakf Board and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 15.12.2008, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra as Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, whereby on an application filed by respondent No. 2, the plaint filed by the petitioner was rejected on account of the fact that prior notice as required under Section 89 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short, `the Act') had not been issued to the Wakf Board before filing the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no need for issuance of a prior notice before filing the suit against the Wakf Board in the facts and circumstances of the present case for the simple reason that earlier the litigation between the parties was pending before the Civil Court, whereby the plaint was rejected on account of the fact that jurisdiction to deal with the issue is vested with the Wakf Tribunal. Meaning thereby that the Wakf Board was in the knowledge of the dispute between the parties and after the rejection of plaint by the civil court, the petitioner had filed the suit before the Wakf Tribunal. No judgment in support of the plea has been cited. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Section 89 of the Act is categoric, which in clear terms provides that no suit shall be instituted against the Board until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to the office of the Board stating the cause of action and the relief claimed along with copy of the plaint. The petitioner having failed to comply with the requirement of law, the C.R. No. 606 of 2009 [2] learned court below has not committed any illegality in rejecting the plaint vide impugned order. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 10.2.2009 mk