DHAKAR CHATRAVAS Vs. RAJASTHAN BOARD OF MUSLIM WAKF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellants against the impugned order dtd. 27/10/2009 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, No.2, Bharatpur, (hereinafter to be referred as the "appellate Court"), whereby application under Order 7 Rule 10 of C.P.C. filed by the respondent-Board had been allowed and the appeal of the appellants had been returned back to file the same before the competent Court.

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent-Board filed a petition before the Estate Officer under the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964 seeking eviction of the alleged wakf property stating therein that the appellants are in unauthorized occupants thereupon. The aforesaid proceedings were admittedly filed in 1992. The Estate Officer vide its order dtd. 24/2/2001 allowed the petition of the Board and ordered to vacate the premises and further handover the possession of the same to the Board with a further direction to make payment of rent from 1981 to 1986 @ Rs.1000.00 per month and further mesne-profit for the use and occupation @ Rs.1000.00 per month till delivery of the possession. Against the aforesaid order of the Estate Officer, an appeal under Sec. 9 of the Act of 1964 was filed by the appellants before the competent Court of District Judge, which was transferred to A.DJ. No.2, Bharatpur for hearing. On appearance, the Board filed an application under Order 7 Rule 10 of C.P.C. The appellants filed reply to the aforesaid application on 30/7/2009. The appellate Court had allowed the application filed by the respondent-Board and returned the appeal to file the same before the competent Court. Hence, this miscellaneous appeal.

(3.) During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 of C.P.C. are not applicable at appellate stage and that too in an appeal under Sec. 9 of the Act, 1964 and not arose out of civil suit. The impugned order (Annexure-4) is illegal and contrary to the provisions of Sec. 7 (5) of the Wakf Act, 1995 and also in disobedience of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sardar Khan and Others Vs. Syed Najmul Hasan (Seth) and Others, reported as 2007 D.N.J. (S.C.) 434 and also against the Circular of this Court dtd. 2/9/1997, hence, the appeal of the appellants be allowed. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has also placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajender Bansal and others Vs. Bhuru (Dead) through Legal representatives and Others, reported as (2017) 4 S.C.C. 202.