CR No.7014 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.7014 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 14.10.2010 **** Atma Singh and others . . . . Petitioners Vs. Haryana Wakf Board through its Administrator, Ambala Cantt. and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.Rajesh Sethi, Advocate with Mr.Sachin Supta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This revision petition is filed at the instance of the plaintiffs against an order passed by the Wakf Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri by which application for interim injunction has been dismissed. It is prayed in the suit filed by the plaintiffs that the property in dispute is not a Wakf property and sought a declaration that the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1996 passed in Civil Suit No.132/90 of 1989 by the Court of M.C. Mehra, the then Senior Sub Judge, Jagadhri, in case titled as Punjab Wakf Board Vs. Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, is illegal, null and void and also prayed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in their actual physical possession. The application for interim injunction filed along with suit was declined against which the present revision petition was filed in which vide order dated 15.02.2010 notice of motion was issued and in the meanwhile parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession. CR No.7014 of 2009 -2- Pursuant to notice, both the respondents have appeared and at the outset, it is alleged by the respondents that by virtue of judgment of the Supreme Court in the Case of “Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through LRs Versus Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf” 2010(2) Rent Control Reporter 266, the suit would lie to the Civil Court and not before the Wakf Tribunal. Faced with this argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the plaintiffs would not mind if they are relegated to the Civil Court but their case pending before the Wakf Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri be transferred to the Civil Court for the purpose of adjudication and the injunction granted by this Court may be allowed to continue. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, did not agree to the aforesaid contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and have submitted that if the Wakf Tribunal has no inherent jurisdiction then all orders passed by it would become nonest rather it is submitted that this Court may pass an order of returning the plaint which has been filed before the Wakf Tribunal to be filed before the Court having jurisdiction. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, present revision petition is disposed of with liberty to the plaintiffs to seek their remedy before the Civil Court as prayed for by them and the Wakf Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri is directed to return the plaint of the plaintiffs for the purpose of its presentation to the competent Court of law. Learned counsel for the petitioners has shown his anxiety that till the time plaint is returned and it is presented before the competent Court of law, respondents may not commit any mischief by taking forcible possession. Therefore, it is submitted that the Wakf Tribunal be directed to return the plaint forthwith on the presentation of the certified copy of the order of this Court and status quo be ordered to be maintained till the time suit is filed. I find logic in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners. Thus, Wakf Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri is directed to return the plaint forthwith to the petitioners on their presentation of the certified copy of this order and further direct the parties to maintain status quo as it exists today up to the period of 15 days from the date of passing CR No.7014 of 2009 -3- of this order. It is made clear that if the suit is not filed by the plaintiffs within the said period of 15 days then it will not be extended at any costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) OCTOBER 14, 2010 JUDGE Vivek