IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 5987 of 2006 Date of Decision: 14.7.2009 Altaf-Ur-Rehman ....Petitioner. Versus Punjab Wakf Board and another ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The plaintiff-petitioner has approached this Court by way of present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 83 (9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short “the Act”) seeking setting aside of the order dated 7.11.2006 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby an application filed by him seeking amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. The trial court while declining the prayer of the plaintiff- petitioner, in para 6 of its order, has recorded as under:- “6. The present case for declaration to the effect that plaintiff is entitled to act as Mutwali in respect to five Khandani Wakfs detailed in the suit and that the CR No. 5987 of 2006 -2- defendants have no right to interfere with the management of the said five Khandani Wakfs and suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the rights of the plaintiff as Mutwali and restraining the defendants from interfering with the management and recovery of rent etc. of the properties in question is filed by the plaintiff. This suit was filed as back as in the year 1994 and since then the plaintiff is prolonging his case on one pretext or the other. Although in the present case issues were framed on 22.1.1998 and the evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 22.3.2006 after lapse of about eight years. Now with regard to the relevancy of the amendment sought by the plaintiff that plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration as well as permanent injunction. For the relief of permanent injunction he has claimed that the defendants should not interfere in his right regarding management and the recovery of rent qua the properties in dispute is concerned. This means the relief of permanent injunction which is relevant qua the facts of the case concerned has already been claimed by the plaintiff in the present case whereas the relief sought through the amendment by filing present application is not at all relevant because the plaintiff is not the owner of the property in dispute but CR No. 5987 of 2006 -3- he is only acting as Mutwali as his father was earlier appointed as Mutwali.The plaintiff has only been governing the properties and managing the same and he is recovering the rent of these properties for that he has already claimed the relief in original plaint. There was no threat on behalf of the defendants to the plaintiff qua the property in dispute since the filing of present suit i.e. since 1994 and suddenly when this suit has ripened for defence and arguments the plaintiff has moved this frivolous application just to prolong the proceeding and to reopen the case for de novo trial. This behaviour of the plaintiff shows that he has filed this application with malafide intention just to prolong the proceeding and nothing else. Although as per the case law produced by ld. counsel for plaintiff it is held by the higher courts that while disposing of the application for amendment the court should take liberal view and grant the amendment if the basic structure of the suit is not changed but in the present case the relevant relief sought by the plaintiff regarding the permanent injunction has already been incorporated in the original suit and this application for amendment is totally irrelevant.” After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, particularly the observation of the court below, CR No. 5987 of 2006 -4- reproduced above, no ground to exercise jurisdiction by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. July 14, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE