HAJI MOHD Vs. CANTONMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order dated 28th March, 1981, the learned Sub Judge (CJM) Srinagar, directed that in a pending appeal by the present petitioners, the Muslim Auqaf Trust be added as a party. He further directed that the appellants shall amend the memorandum of appeal accordingly. Subsequently the appellants moved an application with the prayer that while amending the memorandum of appeal, they may also be allowed to challenge the implement of the Muslim Auqaf Trust as a party respondent. The learned Sub Judge (CJM) disallowed the application holding that the order had become final. It is against these orders that the present revisions have been filed.

(2.) IN my opinion, the revisions are completely misconceived and, think, the trouble has been invited by the learned Sub Judge (CJM) by making a further direction that the appellants should amend the memorandum of appeal The learned Sub Judge allowed the impleadment of the Muslim Auqaf Trust as a party respondent on the ground that the Auqaf had been added as a party defendant in the suit by order of the trial court dated 31 -12 -1980. Curiously enough, the present petitioners have not challenged that order which has become final between the parties. The order of the lower appellate court flows from the order of the trial court. When the petitioners have not chosen to challenge the basic order, they cannot be allowed to challenge the subsequent order which is purely of a consequential nature. The revision against the order of the lower appellate court directing impleadment of the Muslim Auqaf Trust as a party in the appeal is, therefore, wholly mis -conceived. Equally so, the other revision which is directed against the order of the lower court rejecting the petitioners prayer for challenging the impleadment of the Muslim Auqaf Trust as a party in appeal while making amendment in the memorandum of appeal. The reason is obvious. The order of implement cannot be challenged while taking steps wholly untenable. The petitioners got a handle because the lower appellate court asked them to amend the memorandum of appeal it was not necessary to make such direction. Once it was ordered that the Muslim Auqaf Trust be added as a party respondent, all that was needed to be done was to ask the counsel for the appellant to make the necessary correction in the memorandum of appeal, and if possible in the court itself The court, however, kept the matter alive and enabled the appellants to go on making an issue of it, though, they could perhaps foresee, that they were raising a meaningless controversy. Their present revisions are merely an exercise in futility so long as they have chosen to remain content with the order of the trial court, and never cared to agitate it. In the circumstances I direct that the counsel for the appellants would add the Muslim Auqaf Trust as a party in the pending appeal by making necessary correction in the title of the memorandum of appeal under his signatures before the lower appellate court Subject to as aforesaid, these revisions are dismissed.