^ APPLICANT: HIGH C30URT OF CHHATN8aAmi< BILASPUR Misc. CivU Cas®No.86 ofaOOS Jalil Alimed Rizvi^ S/o Riyazul Ralaixa^ a^ed about 64 years, R/o A/85 RADAS Swami Ns^ar, Near Rawan Bbatha Raipur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) NON-APPLICANTS: 3. 4. Versus Syed Faizal Ahmed Riwi^ ag<^d about 42^ S/o Late Syed Afeal Ahmed Rizvd, R/o Hospital Road, Raipur, TahsU & Distt. Raipur(C.G.) Syed Iqbal Ahmed Rizvi, aged aboiit 67, S/o Late Syed Ahmed Rizvi, R/o Hospital Road, Raipur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur(C.G.) Faraz Ahmed Rizvi, S/o Late Syed Afeal Atuxied Rizvi, aged about 30 years, R/o Baastal Raipur, Tahsil & Dlstt. Raipur (C.G.) C.G. Wakf Board, Thioiigh its Chief Executive Officer, Raipur(C»G.) (Applacation under Section 83 (9) ofthe WakfAct, 1^95} Prcsent: Mr. Goutam Btiaduri, counsel for fhe applicant Slade BeaKAs Hoa*blfi M».T.P. fiAaritta. J ORALORIWR (16-3-2009) 1. ThisappUcation is filed against fhe oider dated 9-1-2W9 pass^d by the WakfTribmial, Raipur, in Case No.22/23-%)07, whereby leamed Wakf Tribunal has dismissed fhe appUcation fil^ cai behalf offhe appUcant under Section 7 offhe WakfAct, 1995. 2. Leamed counsel for the appUeant subxaite tfiat fhe WakfTiibunal was required to decide tenability of fhe application uxider Sectioiai 7 of fhe WakfAct, 1995 filed on behalf offhe applicaat, bxit instead of decidiug the questioa of tenabiBty, fhe Wakf Tribuoal has disimsscd fhe appfication ofthe applicaatfiled uader Section 7 ofttee WalriTAct, 199S. 3. I have heaid leamed Goiinsdl for fhe applfcaitt aad perused tfae ox^er iaaipugned^ 4. Perusal of fhe oider iaipugned reveals fhat the WaM Trib^uaal Iias dismissed fhe appUcatio^ jSled under Section 7 ofthe WdkfAct, 1995 ^ on the grouad fhat the issues have beeii fi^amed aiid after fFMamg of issues, no evidence to such effect has beeii adduced by fhe parties* 5. In fhis case, the WakfTribzuial is required to J&ame specffic iftsues aaid\ if such issues are based on law, then fhe Wakf Tribunal has to deeide fhe saiae as preUxnmary issues, but fhe applicant has uot filed aay application to decide any issue as prcUminaiy issue of has not jBled any proposed issue. 6. The appUcaat inay file an appUcati&n for fitamiiig of additional issue aiad may file proposed issue aiad file a^ropriate appiicatfon to dtecide fhe said issue as preluxiiaLary issue. I do not find any xxierit ta this application, saane is Uable to be disi3^issed axul it te hercby dismlssed, wifh fhe aforcsaid observation. No order aa to coste. 7. Consequentfy, I.A.Nos. 1 8& 2 stand disp^sed of. So^a Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge