Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 479 (UTT)

Uttarakhand Waqf Board v. Haji Rao Sharafat Ali

2014-10-17

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2014
Judgment Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Having heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for respondent No. 1 (plaintiff), it transpires that the plaintiff was removed from the office of Chairman of Uttarakhand Waqf Board, by the Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 20 of the Waqf Act. His services were terminated with effect from 25.04.2012. The order of State Government was challenged by way of instituting litigation in the Court of District Judge, who exercises the powers of Waqf Tribunal in the District as envisaged under the Act. So, only the State Government and Collector, Haridwar were impleaded as defendants. Somehow, the matter came up before the High Court in CLR No. 50 of 2013, wherein this Court directed the District Judge to hear the matter as a Civil Suit and since the term of office of plaintiff had to expire in July, 2015, hence, the District Judge was directed to adjudicate the matter within three months with effect from the date of service of order dated 22.05.2014. On 19.08.2014, the District Judge, after hearing the contentions of the plaintiff as well as defendants, by way of passing its order, directed the plaintiff to implead Uttarakhand Waqf Board as a necessary party. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff moved an application on 22.08.2014 seeking recall of such order with the averments that plaintiff was dominus litis, and thus, he cannot be forced to implead any third party who has no propriety in the matter. Having heard the matter on this issue, the District Judge recalled the order dated 19.08.2014 with the observations that after receiving the Written Statements of both the defendants and framing of the issues/additional issues, the decision will be taken as regards the impleadment of Uttarakhand Waqf Board as the necessary party. Now, the Uttarakhand Waqf Board has come up before the High Court by way of filing this revision. It was argued on behalf of the revisionist that no such issue, as regards the determination of the necessity to implead the Waqf Board as a necessary party, was made much less the evidence on this issue has been led by the parties. It was also submitted that the arguments may be heard at any point of time and the case thus will be decided finally by the District Judge, under the time limitation, as settled by the order of the High Court dated 22.05.2014. It was also submitted that the arguments may be heard at any point of time and the case thus will be decided finally by the District Judge, under the time limitation, as settled by the order of the High Court dated 22.05.2014. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) has drawn the attention of this Court towards the provisions under Order 1 Rule 9 C.P.C., which envisages as under:- “No suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court may, in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it: [Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party].” From a plain reading of the above provision, it is clear that the provision under Order 1 Rule 9 C.P.C. shall not be applicable if the necessary party has not been impleaded viz. the suit is likely to be defeated if the necessary party has not been impleaded. The Court feels that there may be several intricacies of the facts, which can only be found in the record of the Waqf Board and not in the record of the State Government, as regards the removal of plaintiff from the headship of the Waqf Board. So, it is difficult to think that the propriety/validity of his removal may be determined without rendering an opportunity to the Waqf Board for presentation of such facts, supported by the documentary evidence, which State Government may not have in its possession. Thus, in view of what has been stated above, this revision is hereby allowed. The District Judge concerned is directed to implead the Waqf Board as a necessary party in the litigation and render an opportunity to the parties to file written statements and then to formulate Issues on the same as well. The fact, which cannot be lost sight of, is that the High Court has already fixed the time limitation for final adjudication of the matter, and the term of the plaintiff will come to an end in the month of July, 2015. So, keeping in view this situation, it is hereby further directed that the Waqf Board shall file its Written Statements latest by 31st October, 2014 before the court below. So, keeping in view this situation, it is hereby further directed that the Waqf Board shall file its Written Statements latest by 31st October, 2014 before the court below. The issues, accordingly, will be framed at the earliest and in every possibility, the matter will be adjudicated finally by the District Judge up to the last week of December, 2014.