1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Civil Revision Application No.243 of 2007 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders 1. Heard Shri S.V.Gangapurwala, Advocate for the applicants and Shri P.V.Mandlik, Senior Counsel, instructed by Advocate Shri Mujtaba Gulam Mustafa for Respondent No.17 and Ms. Sadaf Ali, Advocate, i/by Shri G.R.Shaikh, Advocate for Respondent No.1. 2. This civil revision application is filed against the order dated 1.12.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad, below Exh.47 in Suit No.109 of 2007 rejecting the 2 plaint so far as Respondent No.17- defendant No.17 is concerned, on the ground that there was no cause of action disclosed in the plaint as against defendant No.17. 3. Shri V.G.Gangapurwala, learned counsel for the applicant-plaintiff and Shri P.V.Mandlik, Senior Counsel for Respondent No.17, mainly drew my attention to the contents of the plaint and the order below Exh.47 which was an application for rejecting the plaint as against defendant No.17. 4. It is clear from last sub paragraph of paragraph No.5 of the plaint that not only the appointment of respondent No.17-defendant no.17 on the committee was challenged but it is said that he was illegally and wrongly obstructing in the functioning of the Wakf and its management by the plaintiff. 3 5. In this case, it appears that who should manage the Wakf institution is the main dispute and in the circumstances it cannot be said that there is no cause of action. I quote following portion from the said sub para of paragraph of the plaint. ". In the above said background when there is no removal, taking over the charge from the plaintiff the defendant no.1 cannot appoint any person particularly the defendant No.2 to 5 & 17 for the Management and the supervision of the Institution in all respects. Thus, the acts of appointment of the defendants no.2 to 5 and 17 are illegal, void ab initio, particularly the acts of causing obstruction and interference in 4 the management and supervision of the Wakf and its properties, so also the defendant no.6 to 11 because they are in collusion with defendants n2 to 5 and 17 and also because their acts in supporting or acting illegally frustrating the object of the Wakf amounts to the acts of obstruction in the functioning of the plaintiff and the Institution." 5. Shri P.V.Mandlik, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.17 submitted that it is stated in paragraph 6 of the plaint that all the facts stated in the plaint constitute the cause of action for the suit which finally arose on 30.9.2007 when the plaintiff requested the defendants no. 2 to 11 to refrain from their illegal acts which they refused. According to learned Senior Counsel, there was no disclosure of cause of action in the 5 plaint, as against respondent no.17- defendant no.17. However, the plaint has to be read as a whole and admittedly paragraph No.6 if read in its entirety discloses that the last act dated 30.9.2007 was mentioned to be main cause of action which is to be read with the facts stated in earlier part of the plaint. It may be noted that injunction is prayed for in prayer clause (B) seeking to restrain defendant Nos. 2 to 11 and 17 from carrying out their illegal activities. In view thereof, it cannot be said that no relief was claimed against defendant no.17. 6. In the circumstances, this civil revision application deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. Order passed by Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad, dated 1.12.2007 below Exh.47 in Suit No.109 of 2007 is hereby set aside. Learned Senior Counsel Shri P.V.Mandlik for 6 Respondent-defendant No.17 agrees to that his client would appear before the Wakf Tribunal on the next date fixed in the suit. Date:24/07/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/cra243.07