1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Revision Application No.18 of 2009 (Kabrastan and Lal Diwan Shah Dargah v. Sundarlal Premlal Takot and others) Shri Mohd. Ateeque, Advocate for Applicant. Shri S.D. Deshpande, Advocate for Non-Applicant Nos.1 to 11. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 6th May, 2009 1. This revision is directed against the rejection by the Tribunal under Wakf Act of the application for temporary injunction filed by the applicant Wakf. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the impugned order. 3. The learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has referred to 7/12 extract of the property and has observed that it did not refer to any existence of Dargah. However, it discloses that some of the land is being used as crematory and graveyard. The Wakf has been registered for the management of the graveyard. The dispute is about management of alleged Dargah, about which the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has observed that there is no 2 entry in the 7/12 extract. He has also observed that the right and possession over the suit property has not been established by the plaintiff Wakf. After going through the documents, it does not appear that the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal was in error in holding at prima facie stage that the plaintiff Wakf had not made out a case for grant of temporary injunction. Upon trial if the plaintiff makes out a case for grant of injunction, the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal would undoubtedly grant appropriate reliefs. 4. The learned counsel for both the parties state that they desire that the matter should be expeditiously disposed of by the learned Presiding Officer. They state that the matter is fixed for framing of issues. The learned Presiding Officer shall frame issues within a month of this order. Thereafter both the contesting parties agree that they would complete tendering of evidence, including oral arguments, within a month. If that is done, the learned Presiding Officer would be obliged to decide the matter within fifteen days thereafter. 5. In view of the observations, the revision application is disposed of. JUDGE Lanjewar