SUNNI CENTRAL WAQF BOARD Vs. GOPAL SINGH VISHRAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been made on behalf of defendant No. 2, Paramhans Ram Chandra Das, to decide the matter mentioned therein as preliminary issues. The application has been made under Order XIV R.2(2)(b) and S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. According to the applicant in view of the finding recorded by the learned Civil Judge, Faizabad, on issue No. 17 by order dated 21-4-1966 the suit filed by Sunni Central Board of Waqfs is liable to be dismissed without recording findings on other issues. On this basis the applicant prays that the suit may be dismissed at this very stage.

(2.) The finding recorded by order dated 21-4-1966 is "no valid notification u/S.5(1) of the Muslim Waqf Act No. XIII of 1936 was ever made so far relating to specific disputed property of the present suits at hand." At the time of hearing Sri V.K.S. Chowdhary, learned counsel for some of the defendants prayed that Issues 3, 5(b), 5(e), 5(f), 6, 18, 19(d), 19(e), 20(b) and 21 be also heard and decided as preliminary issues. The ground for making the prayer is that decision on those issues one way may bring the litigation to a close which will save the parties from the ordeal of summoning witness and incurring expense therein. It is submitted that these issues are of law and can be decided without oral evidence. It is also submitted that even if any oral evidence is required for deciding these issues the same may be recorded so that the parties may be saved of a protracted trial. Certain statements in the pleadings of the plaintiffs have been relied upon as containing admission in favour of the defendant.

(3.) The prayer; has been opposed by Sri Abdul Mannan and Sri Z. Jilani, counsel for the plaintiffs. The main thrust of the argument of these counsel is that the matters raised by the defendants have already been dealt with by this Court in order dated 23-10-1989 whereby defendants' Civil Misc. Application No. 14(o) of 1989 dated 11-8-1989 under O.VII,R. 11(d) for rejection of plaint has been rejected. It is passed that the reasons contained in that order are relevant for rejection of the present prayer also. It is submitted that substantial evidence will be required to decide the issues in question and the same evidence may have to be repeated at the trial of suit on all issues. Learned counsel, therefore, contend that the bearing of the issues as preliminary issues will be an exercise in futility and will impose unnecessary financial burden on the parties, apart from causing inconvenience and hardship to them.