HAJI ABDUL LATIF Vs. AZIZUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition seeks assailing the order dated 25.11.2011 of CCJ, whereby the application of the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, who were the defendants No. 1 and 2 in the suit, was dismissed.

(2.) The respondent No. 1 Azizuddin had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the present petitioners (defendants No. 1 & 2) as also defendant No. 3 NDMC. In the said suit, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed by the petitioners (defendant Nos. 1 & 2) for rejection of the plaint. The main premise of filing of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was that the suit was with regard to the property owned and possessed by the Delhi Waqf Board and as per Section 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred. The learned Trial Judge rejected the application, observing that the action alleged by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff was not against the Waqf Board, but against the individualistic actions on the part of the petitioners. It is this order of the Trial Judge, which is under challenge in the instant petition.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as also the respondents and gone through the record. A look at the plaint, which was filed by the respondent No. 1, would demonstrate that he had been claiming himself to be the licensee of the suit shop of Masjid Irwin Road, which according to the his own showing, was a Waqf property. Averment in this regard has been repeatedly made by the respondent No. 1 at various places in the plaint, where certain allegations have been made against the Chief Executive Officer of the Delhi Waqf Board for not granting of tenancy rights or for renewal of the tenancy in respect of the suit shop. On asking, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 fairly conceded to the effect that the suit, that was filed by the respondent No. 1, has such averments at various places, wherein, he had been claiming the suit property as Waqf property. The action that was alleged against the petitioners cannot be said to be in their individual capacity, as they were none else but the senior Executive members of the Masjid, and were responsible for managing the affairs of the Masjid and its properties. The learned Trial Judge has given very narrow interpretation to Section 85 of the Waqf Act. It is settled law that the provisions of Section 85 of Waqf Act, are of wide amplitude. A reference is made to the case of Division Bench of Madras High Court titled Salam Khan & Ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, 2005 AIR(Mad) 241, wherein it is observed as under: