Punjab Wakf Board (Now Haryana Wakf Board) vs Gurudwara Mastgarh Sahib Committee

Sham Sunder, J.—This revision-petition is directed against the order dated 10.10.2007 rendered by the Court of District Judge, Ambala vide which, the trial Court was directed to proceed either under order 7 Rule 10 or Order 7 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the return of plaint, since on the date of presentation of the same (plaint), the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.

The plaintiff (now revision-petitioner) filed a suit for ejectment from Mosque, situated in Abadi Deh, Shahzadpur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, against the defendant (now respondent) in the Civil Court.

Since the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, the Civil Judge, referred the matter to the District Judge, Ambala, who vide order dated 10.10.2007, returned the same (file) to the Civil Judge, to proceed either under Order 7 Rule 10 or Order 7 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground, that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, at the time of presentation of the plaint.

Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition has been filed.

I have heard the counsel for the revision-petitioner, and have gone through the documents, on record carefully.

The counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that, once the District Judge, Ambala, on reference from the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ambala, came to the conclusion, that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction , it was required of him, to transfer the case u/s 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to the Wakf Tribunal, constituted under the Wakf Act. He further submitted that the Court of District Judge, Ambala, could not direct the trial Court, to proceed either under Order 7 Rule 10 or order 7 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure. He further submitted that if the plaint is presented before the Wakf Tribunal, contributed under the Wakf Act in pursuance of the order impugned, the suit would be barred by limitation. He further submitted that the order impugned, being illegal, was liable to be set aside.

After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the counsel for the revision-petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. At the time, when the suit was filed, in the Civil Court by the plaintiff (now revision petitioner), as is evident from the order dated 10.10.2007, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. In these circumstances, the trial Court was required to act either under Order 7 Rule 10 or Order 7 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, by returning the plaint to the plaintiff (now revision petitioner) for presentation, before the Tribunal, under the Wakf Act. The Trial Court, instead of acting either under Order 7 Rule 10 or Order 7 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, made a reference, to the District Judge, Ambala. The District Judge, in my opinion, was right in passing the order impugned, in this revision-petition. It was not a fit case, in which the District Judge, Ambala was required to invoke the provisions of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for transfer of the case to the Wakf Tribunal, under the Wakf Act. If the plaint, in pursuance of the order dated 10.10.2007, is ordered to be presented, by the plaintiff, before the Wakf Tribunal, under the Wakf Act, he may file an appropriate application under the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act, detailing therein the reasons, as to why, and under what circumstances, he filed the suit, before a wrong Forum, and seek condonation of delay, if any. The order dated 10.10.2007 is neither illegal nor suffers from any material irregularity nor perversity and, therefore, the same does not warrant any interference, of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The same is liable to be upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.

For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same is dismissed.