HARMEET KAUR Vs. ABEDA KHATOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present challenge has been preferred by the first defendant in a suit for recovery of possession from the defendant nos. 1 and 2, for damages from the defendant nos. 1 and 2 for making extensive illegal construction in the suit premises without any plan sanctioned by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, for permanent injunction restraining the defendant nos. 1 and 2 and their men, servants and agents from making further construction in the suit premises and from creating any thirdparty interest and for ancillary reliefs, before the Waqf Tribunal at Kolkata.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, by virtue of the impugned order, the tribunal partially rejected the application, filed by both the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the civil court, and not the waqf tribunal, had jurisdiction to decide the suit. Such rejection was allowed only against the defendant no. 2.

(3.) The first ground taken by the petitioner is that the impugned order is contradictory inasmuch as the plaint was rejected against the defendant no.2 on the ground that eviction was sought against the said defendant, whereas, in spite of a similar relief having been sought against the defendant no.1/petitioner as well, the plaint was refused to be rejected against the petitioner.