ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of Opposite Party No. 1 in spite of repeated notices validly served upon him. However, this petition stood dismissed for default on 12.2.2008 against Plaintiff-Opposite Party No.2 due to non-compliance of the Court's order dated 24.1.2008. 2. This Civil Revision has been filed on behalf of the sole defendant-petitioner Faiz Murtaza Ali challenging order dated 20.6.2005 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-II, Patna allowed the petition of Opposite Party No.1 Syed Akbar Hussain and added him as party to Title Suit No. 214 of 2004. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiff-Opposite Party No.2 Lalan Yadav for specific performance of contract against the sole defendant-petitioner with respect to a piece of land situated at Frazer Road, Patna which is a portion of the Hasan Imam Wakf Estate duly recorded in the Bihar State Shia Wakf Board. 4. During the pendency of the said suit Opposite Party No.1 filed an intervention petition for being added as a party to the suit claming that Saiyeda Mehdi Imam widow of Late Syed Mehdi Imam, being Mutawallia of the said Waqf Estate was a necessary party for the suit but she was not impleaded and subsequently she died after executing her last will in favour of the said Opposite Party No.1, with respect to the Waqf properties and hence he has to be added as a party to the suit. The plaintiff did not object to the said petition rather he stated that he had no objection if Opposite Party No.1 was added as a party defendant. However, the defendant-petitioner objected to it but after considering the entire matter in detail the learned court below allowed the said petition filed by Opposite Party No.1 by order dated 20.6.2005 against which the instant Civil Revision has been filed. 5. However, the defendant-petitioner objected to it but after considering the entire matter in detail the learned court below allowed the said petition filed by Opposite Party No.1 by order dated 20.6.2005 against which the instant Civil Revision has been filed. 5. The matter with respect to Hasan Imam Wakf Estate, of which the instant suit land is a portion, had come up for consideration before this Hon'ble Court in M.J.C. No. 596 of 2006 filed by the petitioner Faiz Murtaza Ali and the said petition was dismissed by the order of Division Bench of this Court dated 2.11.2006 reported in 2007(1) P.L.J.R. 130 in which their Lordships specifically held that it was yet another attempt to somehow grab and appropriate under personal ownership a prime property commonly known as 'the Rizwan', located in the heart of the city. For over half a century, it was known to the world as part of a Wakf created by Mr. Syed Hasan Imam, Bar-at-Law, one of the luminaries of the bar of this Court. It may be mentioned here that shortly after the demise of Mr. Syed Hassan Imam in the third decade of the previous century a dispute arose between his second (English) wife Natie Imam and the children from his first deceased wife. The matter came to this Court and at the instance of the Court the dispute between the parties was referred to the joint arbitration of two sitting Judges of the Court, namely, Macpherson and Khwaja Muhammad Noor, JJ. Before the arbitrators Natie Imam claimed that 'the Rizwan' was given to her by her late husband and it was, therefore, her personal property. The arbitrators however, rejected the claim and found and held that 'the Rizwan' was very much part of the Waqf created by Mr. Syed Hasan Imam. 6. The said arbitration award divided the entire Waqf properties of Hasan Imam Waqf Estate including the properties involved in this case as well as Rizwan' in the ratio of 10 Annas and 6 Annas. Natie Imam was appointed as the Motawalli of the 6 Annas block with her son S.A.H.A.A. Imam @ Tutu Imam as the sale beneficiary. Of the 10 Annas block Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, the eldest son of Mr. Hasan Imam from his first wife was appointed as the Motawalli with a number of beneficiaries, being the daughters of the Waqf and their children. Of the 10 Annas block Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, the eldest son of Mr. Hasan Imam from his first wife was appointed as the Motawalli with a number of beneficiaries, being the daughters of the Waqf and their children. After a while Natie Imam passed away and her son S.A.H.A.A. Imam was appointed in her place as the Motawalli and the sole beneficiary of the 6 Annas block. This arrangement continued for about half a century. 7. However, subsequently Syed Mehdi Imam also died leaving behind a widow Mrs. Syeda Mehdi Imam and a son and a daughter, whereafter the said two children also died issueless and finally Mrs. Syeda Mehdi Imam, who was after the death of her husband made Motawallia of the 10 Annas block of Hasan Imam Waqf Estate, also died. It appears that thereafter a dispute arose for grabbing the properties of the Waqf Estate and for frittering it away in haste-past-haste manner by persons who were neither the Motawalli of the Waqf Estate nor could be appointed Motawalli of the Estate according to the terms of the Waqf. The property involved in the instant suit is also part of the Hasan Imam Waqf Estate, but several persons including the aforesaid S.A.H.A.A. Imam as well as the petitioner started claiming that some of the said Waqf properties were not part of the Waqf Estate rather they were their personal properties by devolution and before the matter could be decided by any Court of Law they started frittering away the said properties. The instant suit appears to be one of such matters. 8. The abovementioned case, reported in 2007 (1) PLJR 130 , as well as the instant case both had been filed by the same person, namely, the petitioner Faiz Murtaza Ali In the earlier case the petitioner had claimed that Saiyeda Mehdi Imam, the widow of Late Syed Mehdi Imam had died issueless, and he being her brother's son was the only heir left behind by her. The Division Bench of this Court in its aforesaid decision completely discarded his claim holding that it was difficult to imagine a more hollow and flimsy argument than that as any question of inheritance can arise only in case of personal property of the deceased. The Division Bench of this Court in its aforesaid decision completely discarded his claim holding that it was difficult to imagine a more hollow and flimsy argument than that as any question of inheritance can arise only in case of personal property of the deceased. The entire properties of Hassan Imam Waqf Estate including the properties involved in both of these cases were held to be Waqf properties as far back as in the year 1934 and it had been treated as such since then. Even Late Syed Mehdi Imam and after him his widow Saiyeda Mehdi Imam always maintained that the said properties were Waqf properties and resisted all the attempts of any person claiming even part thereof as his personal property. 9. Furthermore, this court has already found that the petitioner cannot have any right or interest in the said properties as not being in the line of descendants of Syed Hasan Imam, the waqif, for all one knows, he would not be even beneficiary to the property and cannot even be appointed Motawalli of the said Waqf Estate. Since the petitioner claims under Mrs. Saiyeda Mehdi Imam, it appears all the more ironical because both she and her husband were motawallis, who spent their entire lives treating entire properties as waqf and fighting the claim of others who were asserting that it was their personal property. It appeared quite strange and unfortunate that someone claiming under Late Saiyeda Mehdi Imam is trying to lay personal claim over the property and hence, in the aforesaid decision the Division Bench of this Court held that they had no hesitation in holding that the claim of the petitioner Faiz Murtaza Ali was utterly frivolous and untenable. 10. However, in any view of the matter in the instant case, the suit was filed by Opposite Party No.2 who is dominus litus and hence, when a petition was filed on behalf of a person who is claiming to be the representative of the earlier admitted Motawallia Saiyeda Mehdi Imam and the plaintiff had no objection to it and even the learned lower court having found his impleadment necessary for proper adjudication of the suit, the court below has rightly allowed the said petition and ordered for addition of the said person, namely, O.P. No.1 as party to the suit. 11. 11. Furthermore the impleadment of Opposite Party No.1 to the said suit is also necessary for ascertaining the validity of the agreement for sale in question and the right of the petitioner to enter into such agreement which are the main issues to be considered in the suit and the said issues are dependant upon the questions as to whether the suit property is a Waqf property, and if it is so, whether the petitioner (defendant no.1) or O.P. No.1 (defendant no.2) is its motawalli and the petitioner is competent to transfer the said property or enter into an agreement for selling it to anyone including O.P.2 (plaintiff) under the provisions of Mohammedan Law and Waqf Law and whether the suit can legally proceed without impleadment of the Bihar State Shia Waqf Board specially when the petitioner has been declared an interloper by a Division Bench of this Court. 12. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned Court below and accordingly this Civil Revision is dismissed.