JUDGMENT 1. The plaintiff in Title Suit No.14 of 2010, pending before the learned Wakf Tribunal has filed this revisional application being aggrieved by an order dated December 18, 2019 passed by the learned Wakf Tribunal. 2. By the order impugned, the application filed by the plaintiff dated April 22, 2019 for expunging the names of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 from the array of defendants in the said suit was rejected on contest upon imposition of costs of Rs.2,000/-. 3. It is the contention of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the defendant Nos.2 and 3 were the Joint Mutawalli appointed for an interim period and they were nothing but the managers of the Wakf Estate and after disposal of C.O. No.3753 of 2004 by an order dated January 25, 2019, the said defendant Nos.2 and 3 ceased to be interim Mutawalli as their appointment was made by the Chief Executive Officer only till the disposal of the said revisional application. 4. According to the petitioner, Mutawalliship was not a heritable right and once these defendants ceased to be Mutawallis their names should be expunged from the suit as they were no more necessary or proper parties in the suit. 5. I find that C.O. No.3753 of 2004 was disposed of on January 25, 2019 as, according to the learned Co-ordinate Bench, the said revisional application has become infructuous in view of the appointment of 10 persons as the committee of Mutwalli under Section 63 of the Wakf Act, 1995 for a period of one year. 6. The learned Advocate for the petiitoner relies on a decision of the Honble Apex Court in the matter of Faqruddin (Dead) Through LRS. Vs. Tajuddin (Dead) Through LRS. reported in (220*) 8 SCC 12 in support of his contention that the Mutawalliship was not heritable and that the defendant Nos.2 and 3 were Joint Mutawalli appointed for an interim period up to disposal of the C.O. No.3753 of 2004. Vs. Tajuddin (Dead) Through LRS. reported in (220*) 8 SCC 12 in support of his contention that the Mutawalliship was not heritable and that the defendant Nos.2 and 3 were Joint Mutawalli appointed for an interim period up to disposal of the C.O. No.3753 of 2004. He also relies on the provisions of order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure in support of his contention that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings either upon or without the application of either party and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined whether as plaintiff or defendant be struck out. 7. I have considered the order impugned before this Court. The learned Court below has considered the plaint case as also the re-joinder of the plaintiff to the written objection filed by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 and has reproduced certain paragraphs in the order impugned. The learned Court below has found that there are allegations against the defendant No.3 about transfer of the wakf property for a lease of 99 years to a third party and there are averments which show that one murder case was pending against the defendant No.3. The learned Court below has also found that a proceeding has been initiated by the defendant No.2 and 3 under Section 54 of the Wakf Act, 1995 against the plaintiff. Ultimately, the learned Court below held that as the case was at the final stage and a proceeding had been initiated under Section 54 of the Wakf Act against the plaintiff, and further that the defendants had filed their written statements and had contested the suit, by filing written statement and adducing evidence and had cross-examined the witnesses, for the ends of justice, the suit should be disposed of on trial on the basis of such evidence and the pleadings filed by all the defendants. As such at the final stage of disposal of the suit, expunging the names of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 would cause prejudice to the right of the said defendants to contest the suit. 8. I have considered the plaint filed by the petitioner. As such at the final stage of disposal of the suit, expunging the names of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 would cause prejudice to the right of the said defendants to contest the suit. 8. I have considered the plaint filed by the petitioner. Certain paragraphs of the plaint are set out hereinbelow which show that there are allegations against the defendant nos.2 and 3 which, in my opinion, the said defendants have the right to contest. Moreover, the suit has been filed for declaration of the petitioner to be a recorded Khadem through his predecessor and a further declaration that the plaintiff was not an encroacher over the wakf land. A permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 from interfering with the plaintiffs decision over the suit property has also been prayed. The relevant paragraphs of the plaint are set out below: '1. That the defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed an application before the defendant No.1 alleging encroachment over a land measuring 5 decimals in Khatian No.779, Plot No.1745, under Mouza-Nagar, Police Station-Khargram, District -Murshidabad, hereinafter called the Suit Property more fully and particularly described in the Schedule hereunder written. 3. After the defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed complaint for removal of encroachment before the defendant No.1, a show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff and in response that to the plaintiff filed a reply before the Chief Executive Officer, which was termed as objection against the show cause notice as well as enquiry report and the application for removal of encroachment. 4. In the said objection the plaintiff made out the following case - a. That the Wakf is Wakf - al - al - Aulad. b. That the Wakf which was created on the basis of the Taidad itself authorized the beneficiaries to have their residence at the suit property and the said Wakf was created for the enjoyment of the descendants of Md. Rafi and his descendants after him as Khadem of the Asthana. c. That the Wakf was enrolled before the Board of Wakfs, only on 22 nd May, 1954 as an Aulad Wakf. d. .. e. That on the said Wakf Property the descendants of Md. Rafi and his descendants after him as Khadem of the Asthana. c. That the Wakf was enrolled before the Board of Wakfs, only on 22 nd May, 1954 as an Aulad Wakf. d. .. e. That on the said Wakf Property the descendants of Md. Rafi, including the plaintiff have been residing since their predecessors as the descendants have no other landed properties and this act was well recognized by the erstwhile Mutwallis as well as the Board of Wakfs, keeping in view of the terms mentioned in the Taidad. f. That the allegation made by Abu Bakkar Siddique and Jalaluddin, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 that the plaintiff is an encroacher is a false baseless and concocted story and there is no question of encroachment as the plaintiffs for fathers were residing on the suit plot by constructing residential house and that apart all other descendants of Md. Rafi, have been residing in the said plot of land. g. . h. That the complaint/defendant No.2 has been residing in the Wakf Property being Plot No.1787 and the defendant No.3 is also residing in the Wakf Plot No.1746/2016 and 1746/2170 of Mouza - Nagar, Police Station - Khargram, District- Murshidabad. That apart Abu Bakkar Siddique also created a long term lease without permission of the Wakf Board to a third party. i. That father of Jalaluddin, sold out some portion of the Wakf Property in Plot No.1745 to one Prasanna Singh, who was constructed a godown and is being used by him. j. . k. That the present Mutwallis were illegally appointed by the Board without considering the applications of the sons of the other deceased Mutwallis in respect of whom Wakf Tribunal passed an order for their appointment as Mutwalli. 7. It is surprising that although, on the 22 nd December, 2009, the Chief Executive Officer, expressed his view that the hearing concluded and 15 days time was granted to the complainant to file his reply and no further judgment has been delivered by the Chief Executive Officer, but it appears from record that the Chief Executive Officer, issued a notice dated 29 th September, 2010, upon the plaintiff directing him to remove the encroachment and/or to vacate the property and to hand over possession thereof to the Mutwallis within a month from the date of receipt of the said notice dated 29 th September, 2010. Therefore, appears that on the one hand the Chief Executive Officer, has not passed any further order beyond 22 nd December, 2009, but he has issued the notice for removal of encroachment under Section 54(3) of the Wakf Act, 1995. 8. From the aforesaid notice for removal of encroachment it does not appear that which portion of the plaintiff is to vacate and the land alleged to have been encroached appears to be nondemarcated between the alleged two encroachers namely, the plaintiff and one Alauddin Mia.' 9. Although the suit is one for declaration of the petitioner as the Khadem of the property in question and declaration that he is not an encroacher, the plaintiff has also raised a question about the notice issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Board of Wakfs for removal of encrachment and such notice was issued upon a hearing given to the plaintiff based on a complaint lodged by the defendant Nos.2 and 3. In this suit the issue of encroachment cannot be decided without the evidence of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 and their averments in the written statement. It was on the basis of the complaint of these defendants that the original notice of removal of encroachment was issued, which is also a subject matter of the suit. Moreover, there are other allegations against the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the plaint which they are entitled to contest. Thus the continuation of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 even if they were not Mutwallis or interim Mutwallis is necessary as they are necessary parties and proper parties. The entire suit is based on declaration of the title of the petitioner and a declaration that the petitioner was not an encroacher. Thus the contention of the defendants in the suit and also the complaint of the defendant Nos.2 and 3, which was filed at a time when they had a jurisdiction to do so, are required to be adjudicated and the presence of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 is necessary. 10. I do not find any illegality and irregularity in the order impugned. This revisional application is, thus, dismissed. 11. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.