Judgment :- 1. Inveighing the order 9.3.2010 passed in I.A. No.208 of 2009 in O.S. No.220 of 2008 by the Wakf Board Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Vellore, this Civil Revision Petition is focused. 2. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: (i) The Revision Petitioner herein, as Plaintiff, has filed the Suit O.S. No.220 of 2008 seeking the following reliefs: “(a) to declare that the suit property is the Wakf property of the Plaintiff’s Mosque and Durga under the control and management of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, and for consequential permanent injunction, restraining the 8th Defendant, his men, agents, servants and unlawful followers from in any manner interfering with the Plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property; (b) to declare that the registered sale deed dated 9.6.2008, Doc. No.4497/2008, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Gudiyattam, executed by the Defendants 1 to 6 through their Power Agent-7th Defendant in favour of 8th Defendant is illegal, null and void and ab-initio; (c) to grant an order of permanent injunction restraining the 11th Defendant from effecting name transfer in the Revenue records in respect of the suit property; (d) to grant an order of permanent injunction, restraining the 12th Defendant from effecting name transfer in the Municipal records in respect of the suit property; (e) to grant an order of permanent injunction against the 13th and 14th Defendants restraining them from in any manner providing illegal protection to the 8th Defendant to take illegal and forcible possession of the suit property from the Plaintiff’s Mosque and Durga; (f) to grant an order of permanent injunction against the 8th Defendant, his men, agents and servants restraining them from alienating the suit property to any third parties.” (ii) Out of the 14 Defendants, Defendants 1 to 8 filed the Application I.A. No.208 of 2009 under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejection of the Plaint. Counter was filed and after hearing both sides, the lower Court allowed the I.A. and rejected the Plaint. 3. Counter was filed and after hearing both sides, the lower Court allowed the I.A. and rejected the Plaint. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this Revision is focussed on the following grounds, the epitome and the long and short of the same would run thus: (i) The lower Court, without properly appreciating the scope of Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. simply allowed the I.A. rejecting the Plaint. (ii) The lower Court exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining the Application under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. virtually by accepting the case of the Defendants. (iii) The lower Court should have considered the Plaint averments and the documents filed and it should have decided accordingly. (iv) The ingredients of Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. were not attracted. (v) Even though eight documents were marked in the I.A. No.208 of 2009 on the side of the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff, yet those documents were not referred to at all in the order of the lower Court. Accordingly, the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff prays for setting aside the order passed in the I.A. 4. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff reiterating the grounds of Revision and also by inviting the attention of this Court to the various portions of the three typed set of papers, would develop his arguement, the quintessence of them would run thus: (a) The lower Court should not have entertained the Application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. in view of the relevant Gazette Notification, including the Pro Forma found thereunder and also the settlement deed, as per which the suit property was dedicated as Wakf property. (b) The lower Court simply accepted the case of the Defendants 1 to 8 and disposed of the matter. (c) Due opportunity should have been given to the Plaintiff to put forth his oral and documentary evidence. (d) At the threshold itself the Suit should not have been rejected by giving a finding as though the suit property is not a Wakf property, quite antithetical to the documentary evidence available on record. Accordingly, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/Plaintiff prays for setting aside the order passed in the I.A. and also for dismissing the I.A. No.208 of 2009 and for ordering further progress in the Suit. 5. Accordingly, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/Plaintiff prays for setting aside the order passed in the I.A. and also for dismissing the I.A. No.208 of 2009 and for ordering further progress in the Suit. 5. By way of torpedoing and pulverising the arguements as put forth on the side of the revision petitioner/Plaintiff, the learned Counsel for the Respondents/Defendants 1 to 8 would advance his arguement, which could tersely and briefly, pithily and precisely be set out thus: (i) The decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Tamil Nadu Wakf Board v. Hathija Ammal (Dead) by LRs, etc., 2002 (1) CTC 561 (SC) : 2002 (1) LW 384, is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case and the lower Court even though did not refer to it, yet in perfect adherence to that judgment decided the I.A. No.208 of 2009 and rejected the Plaint appropriately and appositely, warranting no interference in this Revision by this Court. (ii) The Gazette Notification dated 11.2.1959 (MAGHA 22, 1880) does not contain the property referred to in the Suit. (iii) Once the suite property is not shown as Wakf property in the Gazette Notification made under Section 5(2) of the Wakf Act, 1954, the question of the Plaintiff claiming the property as a Wakf property does not arise and the lower Court correctly appreciating the facts, rejected the plaint by allowing the I.A. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether the order passed by the lower Court dated 9.3.2010 in I.A. No.208 of 2009 is sustainable or not? 7. Heard both sides. 8. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff would convincingly and correctly point out that the even though the Wakf Board was cited as D9 in the main Suit, yet in the I.A. filed by D1 to D8, the Wakf Board and the other Defendants were not shown as Defendants, inasmuch as they were also necessary parties in the I.A. The Wakf Board was not given opportunity to resist the said Application. 9. I could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff and as such at this juncture, I would like to observe that the lower Court should take steps to see that the Defendants, who were not added as Respondents in the I.A. should also be added, at the instance of the revision petitioner/Plaintiff. 10. 10. The perusal of the judgement of the Honourable Apex Court reported in Tamil Nadu Wakf Board v. Hathija Amman (Dead) by LRs, etc., 2002 (1) CTC 561 (SC) : 2002 (1) LW 384, leaves no doubt that Sections 4, 5, 6 and 27 of the Wakf Act 1954 (which are in pari materia with Sections 4, 5, 6 and 40 of the Wakf Act 1995) should necessarily be adhered to before filing a Suit for recovery of possession of the Wakf property. It is beyond doubt that the institutions like the Plaintiff could file a Suit for possession of the Wakf property, but before filing such Suit necessarily the said institution should comply with the aforesaid provisions of law as per the mandate of the Honourable Apex Court. 11. Certain excerpts from the said decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in Tamil Nadu Wakf Board v. Hathija Ammal (Dead) by LRs, etc., 2002 (1) CTC 561 (SC) : 2002 (1) LW 384, would run thus: “5. Let us now examine the provisions of the Act. Under Section 5(2) of the Act, after a property is notified to be Wakf property, a determination is made by a Civil Court whenever any dispute arises after the notification is published by the Wakf Board as to whether a particular property specified as Wakf property in a list published is a Wakf property or not, Section 6 further provides that the Civil Court shall not entertain any such Suit after the expiry of one year after the date of publication of the list by the Board. Such a Suit cannot be at the instance of the Wakf Board. Again, the Board may itself collect information regarding any property as provided under Section 27 of the Act and decide whether a particular property is Wakf property or not and that decision is final unless it is revoked or modified by a Civil Court. 6. In the event, any property has been omitted by inadvertence or otherwise, then it is for Wakf Board to take action as provided under Section 27 of the Act. 6. In the event, any property has been omitted by inadvertence or otherwise, then it is for Wakf Board to take action as provided under Section 27 of the Act. If the Wakf Board has reason to believe that a particular property is a Wakf property then it can itself collect information and if any question arises whether a particular property is a Wakf property or not it may, after making such enquiry as it may deem fit decide the question and such decision of the Wakf Board shall be final unless revoked or modified by a Civil Court. Such action has not been taken by the Wakf Board in this case. 7. The High Court is justified in holding that the Wakf Board had no right to institute Suit for declaration that any property is a wakf property as the scheme of the Act clearly indicates. The High Court further found that as far as the Appellant is concerned with regard to title of any property, it must comply with the requirements of Sections 4, 5 and 6 or 27 of the Act, which means that if any property is not published as wakf property as required under Section 5(2) of the Act or the Board has not invoked the special power under Section 27, the Wakf Board cannot file a Suit for declaration and possession and on that basis upheld the order made by the Trail Court as affirmed by the First Appellate Court.” 12. The learned Counsel for the Respondents/Defendants 1 to 8 would submit that the lower Court adhered to the aforesaid dictum and the principles enshrined in it, even though the said decision was not found referred to in the order. 13. In this context, I would like to point out that the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/Plaintiff produced before me the certified copy of as many as 8 documents, which are purported to have been marked during enquiry in the I.A. No.208 of 2009. But in the order it is found mentioned as though no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. As such, the lower Court should look into those aspect also. 14. But in the order it is found mentioned as though no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. As such, the lower Court should look into those aspect also. 14. I am of the considered view that it is the duty of the revision petitioner/Plaintiff to establish before the lower Court that as per the Wakf Act, 1995 (former Act 1954), the suit property was included in the Gazette Notification under Section 5(2) of the said Act. Here there is some confusion about it and that alone necessitates this Court to remit the matter back to the Trial Court for considering the point referred to supra. 15. A question might arise as to why this Court itself cannot take judicial notice of the Notification as per the Indian Evidence Act. No doubt, official Gazettes could be taken judicial notice of, but here relating to the Gazette Notification itself, dispute has arisen between the parties. On the one side the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/Plaintiff would submit that the Pro Forma is part of the Gazette and that Pro Forma itself contains all the details of the suit properties as the Wakf properties. Whereas the learned Counsel for the Respondents/Defendants 1 to 8 would submit that the Gazette Notification was made as early as on 11.2.1959, whereas the said Pro Forma emerged only during 2005. 16. Be that as it may, simply because the Pro Forma emerged at a later date, this Court cannot jump to the conclusion that it cannot form part of the Notification under Section 5 (2) of the Wakf Act. It all depends upon the real purport of the Pro Forma with reference to the Notification dated 11.2.1959. 17. It is also a well settled legal position that relating to a Wakf, a property could be added to it subsequently also. Once it could be established by the revision petitioner/Plaintiff that in the Gazette at one point of time the suit property is found included as Wakf property, then in my opinion, the suit before the lower Court would be maintainable. 18. The learned Counsel for the Respondents/D1 to D8 would submit that the Trail Court might be directed not to traverse beyond the scope of Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. by looking into the various other documents. 19. 18. The learned Counsel for the Respondents/D1 to D8 would submit that the Trail Court might be directed not to traverse beyond the scope of Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. by looking into the various other documents. 19. It goes without saying that the scope of the enquiry under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. is limited as set out supra and the lower Court shall do well to see that it probes into the matter with the help of both sides and arrives at the conclusion as per law. 20. As such, with this observation the order of the lower Court dated 9.3.2010 passed in I.A. No.208 of 2009 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to it for proceeding further. Both the parties shall appear before the lower Court on 15.7.2010. 21. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/Plaintiff would make an extempore submission that by virtue of this order the Suit got revived and in such a case the interim orders already passed in this Revision might continue. 22. It is axiomatic and obvious that once the Suit revives then whatever transactions emerges subsequently, would be hit by lis pendens and it is open for the revision petitioner/Plaintiff to approach the lower Court and get appropriate orders.