Judgment COMMON ORDER: The petitioners herein filed six separate suits in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur against the respective defendants therein for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties. They have also filed applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. It is stated that an order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court is in force. A.P. State Wakf Board represented by its Chief Executive Officer, the first respondent in each of the revisions, filed applications under Rule 10 of Order I C.P.C., with a prayer to implead it as defendant in each of the suits. It was pleaded that the suit schedule properties belong to the Wakf Board. The applications were resisted by the petitioners both on merits and maintainability. Through common order, dated 21.02.2009 the trial Court allowed the applications. Hence, these six revisions. Sri S.V. Sundara Rajan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that in a suit for injunction simplicitor it is ultimately for the plaintiff to choose the opponents and no third party can get impleaded contrary to the wishes of the plaintiff. He submits that in case, the first respondent is of the view that the property belongs to it, the only course open to it to institute a suit before the Wakf Tribunal, as provided under Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’). The learned counsel further submits that the trial Court has grossly erred in making an observation that it would proceed to decide the title to the property and dismiss the suits in case it emerged that the properties belong to Wakf Board. According to him, such a course is impermissible in a suit for injunction simplicitor. Sri Mohd. Habeeb-Ur-Rahaman, learned counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, submits that it is permissible for Wakf Board to get itself impleaded in the suit as provided for under Section 92 of the Act. He contends that if the first respondent is able to satisfy the trial Court at least, prima facie, that the suit schedule property belongs to Wakf, the jurisdiction of the trial Court stands excluded by operation of Section 85 of the Act. The suits are for the relief of injunction simplicitor. The question of determination of title therein does not arise. The suits are for the relief of injunction simplicitor. The question of determination of title therein does not arise. A reference to title, if at all, would be only in the limited context of understanding the claim of the respective parties in the suit schedule property. Left to the petitioners, they had grievance only against the defendants impleaded in the suits. In a suit for injunction, the plaintiff has the prerogative to choose his opponents and no body can claim right, to get himself impleaded, to the dislike of the plaintiff. It is only when allegations of collusion or fraud are made that the trial Court can consider the feasibility of impleading third parties also, if it is found that their interests are adversely effected on account of their not being made parties. The first respondent took a specific plea that the properties belong to it. The very fact that the suits are filed by the petitioners herein in relation to the same, discloses that there is a dispute as to the property. Section 6(2) of the Act directs that whenever dispute arises as to the right or entitlement of the ownership of the property, proceedings are to be initiated before the Wakf Tribunal. Therefore the first respondent ought to have instituted the proceedings before the Tribunal, if it so wanted. It is no doubt true that Section 92 of the Act enables the Wakf Board to appear and plead as a party to any suit or proceedings in respect of wakf or any wakf property. The provision reads as under. Board to be party to suit or proceeding: - In any suit or proceeding in respect of a Wakf or any Wakf property the Board may appear and plead as a party to the suit or proceeding. From this, it cannot be said that the Wakf Board is conferred with any right to get itself impleaded in every suit. A plain reading of the provision would suggest that whenever any property, which is undisputedly owned by a wakf is the subject matter of a suit, it can enter appearance. That does not mean that irrespective of the nature of the property, the Wakf Board can get itself impleaded as party. The common order passed by the trial Court that is assailed herein, suffers from a serious flaw. That does not mean that irrespective of the nature of the property, the Wakf Board can get itself impleaded as party. The common order passed by the trial Court that is assailed herein, suffers from a serious flaw. Repelling the contention of the petitioners that in case the first respondent is of the view that the property belongs to wakf it has to file a suit before the Wakf Tribunal; the trial Court observed as under. “The first respondent argued that the above documents produced by the petitioner cannot be looked into by this Court as the jurisdiction of this Court is barred under Section 85 of the Wakf Act. The Bar under Section 85 of the Wakf Act to decide the dispute with reference to Wakf property would arise only when the Civil Court came to a conclusion holding that the disputed property is the Wakf property. Then the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred. In case, in all these suits at the end of the trial, this Court reaches conclusion that the property involved is a Wakf property, then this Court would dismiss the suits holding the jurisdiction is barred under Section 85 of the Wakf Act. At this stage, in order to permit the petitioner to come on record, this Court is to prima facie look into whether the property disputed is a Wakf property. For this purpose, this Court is entitled to look into the above said documents produced by the petitioner to decide whether the disputed property prima facie is a Wakf property. Therefore, the plea of the first respondent that this Court is not entitled to look into the documents of the petitioner is not correct and tenable under Law. In the light of the discussion made above, the petitioner prima facie proved that the property involved in all the suits is a Wakf property for the limited purpose to decide these petitions.” First of all, the scope of the suits does not permit of adjudication of title to the property. Secondly, the Court has already recorded a finding, though prima facie to the effect that the property involved in the suits is wakf. The occasion for the Wakf Board to get itself impleaded may arise at the most, in a suit for declaration of title, and not the one for grant of injunction. Secondly, the Court has already recorded a finding, though prima facie to the effect that the property involved in the suits is wakf. The occasion for the Wakf Board to get itself impleaded may arise at the most, in a suit for declaration of title, and not the one for grant of injunction. No evidence was recorded and still a finding, which would go to the root of the matter, to be recorded. The findings are fallacious. Hence, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the orders under revision are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.