JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - Admittedly, Khudawand Tala Waqf Allal Nafus Allal Aulad is a Waqf created by Maulvi Nisar Ahmad which besides other properties owns a shop and residential portion situated in the ground and first floors in the city of Saharanpur. Suit No. 12 of 1983 was filed in the court of Judge Small Causes Court by the waqf through its Mutwalli Syed Maqsood Ali Shah. The tenants did not dispute that the waqf was their landlord. However besides other pleas a plea was raised that Syed Maqsood Ali Shah was not the Mutwalli of the Waqf and thus not entitled to file the suit, It was pleaded that one Afzal Ahmad was the Mutwalli of the Waqf to whom rent was always being paid by them. 2. During the pendency of the suit an application under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. was filed by Afzal Ahmad praying that he be impleaded as a party to the suit. The aforesaid application was decided by the Judge Small Causes Court by his order dated 17-6-1983. It has been held that it would be proper to implead Afzal Ahmad as one of the parties to the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The revision has been allowed and the application moved by Afzal Ahmad under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. has been rejected. It is this order which has been challenged in this writ petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that in the present case the tenants themselves have raised a dispute that the plaintiff is not properly represented as Syed Maqsood Ali Shah is not the Mutwalli of the Waqf. It has also been pleaded by the tenants that the Mutwalli of the waqf is Afzal Ahmad to whom they have always paid the rent, On these facts it has been urged that on the pleadings of the parties the Judge Small Causes Court will have to decide the controversy as to whether the suit is properly constituted and whether Syed Maqsood Ali Shah is the Mutwalli of the Waqf or not. In these circumstances the learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner is a proper party for the proper, effective and complete adjudication of the aforesaid questions. 4. In these circumstances the learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner is a proper party for the proper, effective and complete adjudication of the aforesaid questions. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent has however urged that Afzal Ahmad is neither a necessary nor a proper party. Th plaintiff has a right to choose against whom he wants to obtain a decree. As far as proper adjudication of the dispute is concerned, it has been argued that the defendants will be entitled to lead all evidence on this question to negate the claim of the plaintiff. 5. After considering the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the parties carefully, I am of the opinion that in this case there is no dispute regarding the question as to who is the landlord of the premises in dispute. Admittedly the landlord of the premises in dispute is Khudawand Tala Waqf Allal Nafas Allah Aulad i.e. the Waqf. The question which would arise for consideration before the Judge Small Causes Court on the pleas of the parties would be as to whether the suit is properly constituted or not being filed by a person who is not in fact the mutwalli of the aforesaid Waqf. As observed above the defendants are challenging that the suit is not properly constituted as the person who is the mutwalli of the Waqf has not filed the same. They have also come with the plea that Afzal Ahmad is the mutwalli of the Waqf. The court on these varying pleas of the parties will have to adjudicate on the question as to who is the mutwalli of the Waqf. On the entire facts and circumstances of the case in my opinion Afzal Ahmad is the proper party to the suit for complete, proper and effective adjudication of the dispute. The view taken by the revisional court under the impugned order is, therefore, not is accordance with law and is liable to be quashed. 6. For the reasons stated above, the present writ petition is allowed. The order of the 1st Additional District Judge, Saharanpur dated 15-4-1986 is quashed. Shri Afzal Ahmad will now be impleaded as a respondent to the suit. The suit has been filed in the year 1983 and is pending now for about 4 years. 6. For the reasons stated above, the present writ petition is allowed. The order of the 1st Additional District Judge, Saharanpur dated 15-4-1986 is quashed. Shri Afzal Ahmad will now be impleaded as a respondent to the suit. The suit has been filed in the year 1983 and is pending now for about 4 years. The Judge Small Causes Court shall try to dispose of the suit within a period of three months from the date of filing a certified copy of this order by the parties before him. The stay order granted by this Court on 15-7-1986 is vacated. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case parties will bear their own costs.