I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAI PUR ORDER IN S.B. Civ il W r it Pet it ion No.68 3 3 / 2 0 0 3 Asad Ali s/ o late Shri Ahmad Ali Ver sus Ahmad Ali S/ o Alhaz Syed Husain Ali (Deceased) through Syed Furkan Ali and and Others Dat e of Or der ::: 1 5 .0 4 .2 0 0 8 Present Hon 'ble Mr . Ju st ice Nar endr a Ku m ar Jain Shri Syed Manzoor Ali, Counsel for petitioner None present for respondents No.1/ 1 to 1/ 3 and 2 Shri Amod Kasliwal, Counsel for respondent No.3 # # # # By t h e Cou r t : - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration in respect of disputed property before the District Judge which was transferred to Rajasthan Wakf Tribunal, Jaipur, wherein the defendants No.2 Sayed Raja Ali as well as defendant No.3 Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakfs, both, preferred two separate applications – one under Section 87 of the Wakf Act, 1995 and another under Section 87 of the Wakf Act, 1995 read with Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for dismissal of the suit. The learned Tribunal, vide its order dated 21st July, 2003, dismissed the application of the defendant No.3 Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakfs and allowed the application of the defendant No.2 Sayed Raja Ali and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-petitioner vide order dated 21 st July, 2003, which is under challenge in this writ petition. A notice to show cause was given to the respondents and in pursuance thereof the respondent No.2 Sayed Raja Ali and respondent No.3 Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakfs, both, filed their separate reply to the writ petition. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 raised an objection that the plaintiff-petitioner himself filed an application for registration of the disputed property before the Chief Executive Officer, Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakfs, which has been dismissed vide order dated 15 th September, 2003, which has been annexed as Annexure R-3/ 1 with the reply to the writ petition and contended that unless this order is challenged and set-aside the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 15th September, 2003 was not in knowledge of the petitioner and the time of filing the present writ petition before this Court on 31st October, 2003, therefore, the said order could not be challenged in this writ petition. However, he submits that this order gives separate cause of action and this order is appealable before the Tribunal, therefore, he may be granted permission to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file an appeal against the said order dated 15th September, 2003 in accordance with the law but an observation may be given to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as this writ petition remained pending before this Court. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the petitioner is always at liberty to file an appeal along-with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which will be considered and decided by the Tribunal in accordance with the law. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and examined the impugned order challenged in the writ petition as well as the order dated 15th September, 2003 annexed with the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 and, after considering the same, I find that the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner, appears to be reasonable and I allow his prayer. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 15 th September, 2003 by way of appeal before the Tribunal along-with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is observed that in case the appeal is preferred along-with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act within a period of 30 days from today then it is expected from the Tribunal to consider the application of the petitioner under section 5 of the Limitation Act sympathetically for the purpose of exclusion of the period spent by the petitioner in prosecuting the present writ petition. With the aforesaid observations and liberty, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. ( Nar endr a Ku m ar Jain) J. / / Jaiman/ / I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAI PUR ORDER IN S.B. Civ il Misc. St ay Applicat ion No.57 03 / 2 0 03 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6833/ 2003 Asad Ali s/ o late Shri Ahmad Ali Ver sus Ahmad Ali S/ o Alhaz Syed Husain Ali (Deceased) through Syed Furkan Ali and and Others Dat e of Or der ::: 1 5 .0 4 .2 0 0 8 Present Hon 'ble Mr . Ju st ice Nar endr a Ku m ar Jain Shri Syed Manzoor Ali, Counsel for petitioner None present for respondents No.1/ 1 to 1/ 3 and 2 Shri Amod Kasliwal, Counsel for respondent No.3 # # # # By t h e Cou r t : - In view of the order passed in the writ petition itself, the stay application, filed therewith, also stands disposed of. ( Nar endr a Ku m ar Jain) J. / / Jaiman/ /