ZAMEEL AHMAD Vs. SMT. SHAKEELA BANO AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri M.J. Akhtar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ashish Kumar Srivastava and Sri Fahim Ahmad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 5.10.2012, by which the revision filed by the respondent No. 1 against the order of Judge Small Causes Court dated 1.2.2011 has been allowed and the order of Judge Small Causes Court has been set aside. Judge Small Causes Court by order dated 1.2.2011 has allowed the impleadment application.

(2.) Brief facts of the case that the respondent No. 1 filed SCC Suit No. 30 of 1997 against the respondent No. 2 in respect of the property CK-69/32, Mohalla Resham Katra, Varanasi. In the said suit, the respondent No. 1 claimed herself to be owner of the property. The petitioner filed impleadment application claiming as Mutwallia and claimed that the property in dispute is waqf property, therefore, he may be impleaded as party. Trial Court vide order dated 11.2.2011 has allowed the application, against which the respondent No. 1 filed revision, which has been allowed by order dated 5.10.2012, which is impugned in the present writ petition. Revisional authority has held that in respect of the property in dispute case No. 1534 of 1994 has been filed by Mohd. Akhtar, Mutwalli of the waqf Mohd. Hasan Raja Khan against the respondent No. 1, Smt. Shakeela Bano, who claimed to be the owner of the property, claiming that the property in dispute namely, CK-69/32, Rasham Katra, Varanasi is a waqf property. The said suit has been decided on 10.12.1996 by a detailed order after examination of the contention of the rival parties. Trial Court has held that the property in dispute is not waqf property. The revisional Court has allowed the revision on the ground that vide order dated 10.12.1996 in Suit No. 1534 of 1994 it has been held by the Civil Court that the property in dispute is not waqf property. The said order has become final, inasmuch as it has not been challenged by any of the party and accordingly, held that the petitioner is not necessary party to be impleaded.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that various documents reveals that in respect of the property in dispute one waqf deed dated 19.7.1919 has been executed, which is a registered document and on the basis of this deed, the property is registered with the Waqf Board.