HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5279 of 2006 DATED 26TH AUGUST, 2010. BETWEEN Hafiz Salim Basha … Petitioner and Madrasa Riazul Uloom Committee, Rep. By its Secretary S.K. Masum Saheb …Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5279 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner, who claims to be the Muthavalli purportedly ﬁled this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved over the order dated 15.09.2006 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, dismissing I.A.No. 388 of 2006 in O.S.No. 1095 of 2004 ﬁled by the petitioner/defendant under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC to implead the A.P.Wakf Board as Defendant No.2 in the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff. Admittedly the aforesaid suit is ﬁled for bare injunction alleging that the plaint schedule property belongs to Wakf Board and it was purchased from third parties after the permission granted by the AP Wakf Board. Since the respondent is disputing the title of the wakf board over the plaint schedule property, it is just and necessary to implead the Wakf Board as a necessary and proper party for effective adjudication of the suit. The Court below did not ﬁnd favour with the claim of the petitioner and dismissed the said application on the ground that Wakf Board is not a necessary and proper party for effective adjudication of the suit. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record, it is apparent that suit is one for bare injunction. In a suit for injunction, the party who approaches the court has to prove the prima facie possession of the property as on the date of ﬁling the suit. However, the petitioner could not establish the fact of title, which is incidental to the relief sought for permanent injunction. Even if the wakf Board has got right title and possession over the plaint schedule property its presence as a party is not necessary for eﬀective adjudication of the matter as the suit is only for bare injunction. Hence, the court below rightly opined that though the Wakf board is not necessary and proper party for eﬀective adjudication of the matter, without impleading it as party, the matter can be decided with oral and documentary evidence relating to the title. Be that as it may, since the plaint property is being claimed by the Wakf Board as belonging to Edga, the Wakf Institution is always at liberty to avail ample legal remedies available under law by ﬁling appropriate proceedings before the Court of law. In that view of the matter, I do not see any merit in the Civil Revision petition. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed giving liberty to the Wakf Board to avail appropriate legal remedies under law by ﬁling suit or any other appropriate proceedings seeking necessary relief. If any such suit or proceedings is ﬁled, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law, uninﬂuenced by any of the observations made hereunder. No order as to costs. ---------------------------------------- JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO 26T H AUGUST, 2010. Msnr.