SURINDER SINGH Vs. PUNJAB WAKF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present petition is to the order dated 8.11.2007 (Annexure P.5), passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra, whereby the plaint filed by the petitioner-plaintiff was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the dispute being relating to Wakf property, the appropriate remedy was to file a petition before the Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short, 'the Act').

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that the plaintiff along with Harbans Kaur and Lamber Singh filed a suit for mandatory injunction that they are owners of the land comprised in Khewat No. 2466, Khatoni No. 2814, Khasra No. 216/2/3(2-0), Khewat No. 2467, Khasra No. 216/2/2(3-3), Khewat No. 2470, Khasra No. 216/2/1(4-16), situated at Darra Kalan, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. They are in possession of the suit property for the last more than two decades where they had constructed a petrol pump, service station and houses. In execution of the warrant of possession issued by the Court, boundary wall of the premises of the petitioner plaintiff was demolished and the petitioner was sought to be dispossessed forcibly from the land owned by him. On an application filed by the respondent-Wakf Board under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaint was rejected in terms of the provisions of Section 83 and 85 of the Act.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The undisputed facts on record are that the earlier suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 8.11.2007 on an application filed by the Wakf Board under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, holding that the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction in terms of Sections 83 and 85 of the Act. After rejection of the plaint, the petitioner filed a petition before the Tribunal constituted under the Act, which was dismissed on 15.12.2008 for the reason that the petitioner had not issued mandatory notice under Section 89 of the Act to the Wakf Board before filing the suit. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the relief claimed by the petitioner was only injunction, where merely demarcation of property was required and the same will not fall within the ambit of jurisdiction vested in the Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Act is totally misconceived. Relevant parts of Sections 83 and 85 of the Act are extracted below :