JUDGMENT : 1. This civil revision has been instituted against the judgment and order dated 29.9.2014 passed by Waqf Tribunal/Civil Judge (S.D.), Meerut, in Misc. Case No. 17 of 2004 (Mohammad Faruk Vs. Sunni Central Board and Others), by which application 3C2 under Section 151 C.P.C. Moved by the applicant-Mohammad Farooq, was allowed at the cost of Rs. 5,00/-and the order passed on the withdrawal application on 10.12.2003 in reference/original suit no. 1294 of 1993 was recalled. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that Md. Farooq-plaintiff filed a case in the Court of Waqf Tribunal/Civil Judge (S.D.) Meerut, as reference no. 1294 of 1993 against Sunni Central Waqf Lucknow, Managing Committee and Waqf Qabristan Biradari Shah Khan, with the averments that he is owner of the house no. 169 (170) situtated in Mohalla Gulzar Ibrahim, Lisari Road, Halka No. 13, Meerut City, and is living with his family. The house was constructed about 60 years back and father of the plaintiff was the resident of the house in suit as owner with his family and after his death, the plaintiff inherited his right as son and is residing in the house as owner, the name of the petitioner is recorded as owner in the corporation Assessment Register. The house was not dedicated by his father or by him and it is his personal property. 3. On 2.11.1993 the plaintiff received a notice under Section 213 of the Nagar Mahapalika Act from which it is revealed that opposite party no.3 has applied for mutation of its name on the allegations that the property is a waqf property and the same has been registered by opposite party no.1 by order dated 12.9.1991. In the waqf register boundaries and house number are not given but since the opposite party no. 3 has applied for mutation hence the plaintiff is bound to get the order dated 12.9.1994 set-aside. The plaintiff was not given any notice by the opposite party before registering the house in dispute as waqf property and he was not knowing this fact before 2.11.1993. The order dated 12.9.1991 is illegal without jurisdiction and is liable to be set-aside. The plaintiff prayed for setting aside of the order dated 12.9.1991 regarding property in suit passed by U.P. Sunni Cetral Board of Waqf, Lucknow. 4. The order dated 12.9.1991 is illegal without jurisdiction and is liable to be set-aside. The plaintiff prayed for setting aside of the order dated 12.9.1991 regarding property in suit passed by U.P. Sunni Cetral Board of Waqf, Lucknow. 4. Defendant nos.2 & 3 appeared and filed written statement/objection and denied the facts of the plaintiff and in additional pleas, pleaded that the petition is miserably time barred and the plaintiff is stopped from challenging the nature of the property being part of Waqf Qabristan Biradary of Sheikhan known as Takia Shad Shah Langot, Meerut. The land beneath the malba of the house, which was erected with the permission of the then Mutwalli of the Waqf Qabristan, forms part of the big area spread over ten thousand square yards from time immemorial. The purpose of permitting the ancestors of the petitioner to reside within the boundaries of the Qabristan was to have a watch upon the waqf property, they did not enjoy and other privilege like ownership or lessee's rights. The petition has been filed on malafide grounds and vague allegations. The plaintiff has deliberately avoided to mention the names of his ancestor, who is alleged to have acquired the land and the mode of its acquisition, Khasra plot number and other details. The real fact is that the land pertains to Khasra Plot No. 774 and other adjoining numbers, Mahal Lekhraj Mazbata, Qasba Meerut, and the then Mutwalli of Qabristan late Chaudhary Abdul Karim had allowed Mohd Hafiz father of the petitioner-plaintiff to occupy the land as a tenant for which a registered rent deed dated 6.5.1937 was executed between the parties as such the petitioner or his father can not claim ownership right of the property in question. The entire Qabristan was registered with the U.P.S.C. Board of Waqf Lucknow in the year 1970 and a committee of management was appointed for looking after the Waqf property. The petitioner or his late father had not challenged or asserted their title over the property, prior to their objections in the correction proceedings in the office of Meerut Corporation. The entire Qabristan was registered with the U.P.S.C. Board of Waqf Lucknow in the year 1970 and a committee of management was appointed for looking after the Waqf property. The petitioner or his late father had not challenged or asserted their title over the property, prior to their objections in the correction proceedings in the office of Meerut Corporation. The plaint is defective and is liable to be rejected on the ground that the Waqf has been impleaded through president of the management committee whereas only secretary of the committee, presently M.Haroon son of M. Shafi is entitled to file or defend the suit on behalf of the Managing Committee of the waqf. On the aforesaid grounds, defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit and the reference. 5. During course of hearing in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.)/Waqf Tribunal, Meerut, the plaintiff Mohammad Farooq moved a withdrawal application that on 10.12.2002 at the time of reference, he was not fully aware of the facts and now after getting some old papers, this fact has been known to him that land Tahti of House No. 169 Mauh Gulzar Ibrahim Meerut, Waqf Shekhan/page 616 Meerut, is the waqf property which was taken by Sufi Hafiz Shah on rent from the Mutwalli of the Waqf and used to live as tenant. Late Sufi Hafiz Shah had orally gifted the house and the tenancy rights to the plaintiff and made the plaintiff owner in possession. On this basis, the petitioner had filed the aforesaid suit. Since the actual and true facts are known and it is proved that the disputed property is the waqf property, therefore, the plaintiff has no objection to the continuance of the entry in the name of opposite party no.1 as waqf property. The plaintiff has satisfied himself by understanding the legal position hence it was prayed to struck off the reference no. 1294/1993. 6. This application was allowed on 10.12.2003. The order dated 10.12.2003 reads as under: “Case is taken up. Called out. The petitioner has prayed by submitting an application to struck off his reference. The opposite has no objection. When the petitioner himself wants dismissal of his reference and does not want to contest, then reference is quashed on the basis of application of the petitioner.” Order On the basis of application of the applicant, the reference is quashed. File be consigned.” 7. The opposite has no objection. When the petitioner himself wants dismissal of his reference and does not want to contest, then reference is quashed on the basis of application of the petitioner.” Order On the basis of application of the applicant, the reference is quashed. File be consigned.” 7. After a long gap the plaintiff Md. Farooq moved an application 3C2 under Section 151 CPC stating that the house no. 169 Gulzar Ibrahim Lisari Gate, Meerut, is the house of the applicant since the time of his father. The opposite party no.2-waqf has nothing to do with the house, no one has ever made Waqf of the debris of the house or tahti arazi. One Haroon who is the secretary of the waqf wrongly registered the property of the disputed house as waqf and on the basis of wrong entry, name of waqf has wrongly been entered into the records of the Municipal Corporation. After knowing, the applicant filed the reference number 1294/1993 in which evidence of the applicant was yet to be done. Haroon in collusion with the Chief Executive Officer, had wrongly got the order of eviction against the applicant against which the applicant had filed case no. 1095 of 2003. The applicant had obtained stay order in reference no. 1294 of 1993. The applicant is an old man and wanted to avoid hassle of the litigation, besides, Haroon is a very influential person, he tried to intimidate the applicant through other persons, started threatening that he would forcefully take over the house. Since the applicant wanted to avoid litigation, Hafiz Haroon told the applicant that if the applicant is handing over the land, he would consider him owner of the debris and the arazi, and he would not be evicted treating him to be tenant. After withdrawal of the suit, Hafiz Haroon tried to take possession of the house of the applicant under Section 55 of the Waqf Act, 1995 and refused to accept the applicant as tenant. The applicant came to know from these actions that his intention was different, he cheated the applicant and also cheated the Court. On account of cheating the case had been withdrawn due to which applicant is suffering therefore, order dated 10.12.2003 be canceled and the case be decided on merit. 8. The applicant came to know from these actions that his intention was different, he cheated the applicant and also cheated the Court. On account of cheating the case had been withdrawn due to which applicant is suffering therefore, order dated 10.12.2003 be canceled and the case be decided on merit. 8. Defendant-revisionist filed objection 23C2 with affidavit and submitted that the statement of the applicant-plaintiff is false, the application is malicious and has been moved under pressure of some land mafias who want to take advantage of the opportunity in a wrong way creating influence on the brother and sister of the applicant, therefore, they want to get the order of the Waqf Tribunal quashed. The application is time barred and does not indicate as to how it is maintainable and how it could be decided on merit. The applicant had withdrawn the reference on 10.12.2003 and the original suit number 1095 of 2003 had also been withdrawn. Arif son of the applicant was also present in the Court and they had told the court that he was withdrawing the reference and the suit on their free will, it is wrong to allege that H.M. Haroon, Secretary, Managing Committee/Mutwalli of the Waqf avoided to receive rent or refused to treat the applicant as a tenant. It is specifically stated that the Waqf Qabristan assures the Court that if the applicant is avoiding to perform his undertaking and the fixed rent is paid by him, the proceeding under Section 54/55 Waqf Act would not be initiated against the applicant. It is wrong to allege that the property is not the Waqf property. The Court below after being satisfied had allowed the withdrawal of the reference. The applicant can not dictate the Court of law to act as per his choice and whims, if the application is allowed, the same shall result the endless litigation. The applicant has submitted the application on the greed of land mafias to grab the land. The applicant has concealed the condition of the site that one part was to be used as cemetery and agreed to pay rent on the other part. In fact he had removed all his house-hold articles from that part. Therefore, the application under Section 151 CPC be dismissed. 9. The applicant has concealed the condition of the site that one part was to be used as cemetery and agreed to pay rent on the other part. In fact he had removed all his house-hold articles from that part. Therefore, the application under Section 151 CPC be dismissed. 9. After hearing both the parties, Civil Judge (S.D.)/Waqf Tribunal allowed the application moved by the applicant-opposite party no.2, without giving any cogent reasons, therefore, the revisionist-opposite party had moved this civil revision on the aforesaid grounds. 10. None appeared from both the sides. Therefore, this revision is being decided after evaluating the evidence/material available on record. 11. It is noteworthy that in the reference, opposite party no. 2 has claimed himself and his father to be the owner of the property in question. It is also accepted by him that it is like debris and part of the waqf property. He did not deny that he had not moved the application dated 10.12.2003 before the Waqf Tribunal/Civil Judge (S.D.), Meerut, in which he had accepted that he is the son of Safi Hafiz Shah and had also accepted that the land of house no. 169 is under the ownership of Waqf Qabristan Shekhran Biradari No. 616, Meerut, which was taken by his father on rent and he was living there and during his lifetime, debris of the house and all the rights regarding tenancy was transferred to him by way of oral gift, therefore, he had filed the suit. Mohd. Farooq had also accepted that at the time of institution of the reference, he was not knowing the detail facts of the matter and after getting some old papers he knew that the property in suit is the waqf property which was taken by his father on rent. He had also admitted that he has no objection regarding recording of the property in question as waqf property. He had further admitted that he had satisfied himself by taking legal opinion and the application was moved with his free will and the same was accepted and the reference and the suit of Md. Farooq was dismissed on 10.12.2003. 12. He had also admitted that he has no objection regarding recording of the property in question as waqf property. He had further admitted that he had satisfied himself by taking legal opinion and the application was moved with his free will and the same was accepted and the reference and the suit of Md. Farooq was dismissed on 10.12.2003. 12. It is a matter of surprise that without moving any application for condonation of delay and without adopting any due course of law, the application under Section 151 CPC was moved and the same was allowed by Civil Judge (S.D.)/Waqf Tribunal, Meerut, without any cogent reason and without any basis. Under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC there is provision for withdrawal of suit which reads as such: “As per Order 23, Rule 1(1) of the CPC, a plaintiff may abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim at any time after the institution of a suit. As soon as an application is filed under this sub-rule, the withdrawal of the suit is complete and such withdrawal is not dependent on the court's order.” 13. In this case no permission was taken to withdraw the reference with liberty to institute it again in respect of the subject matter, therefore, there was no occasion or right to move an application under Section 151 CPC. The Waqf Tribunal, Meerut, has hammered on the version of the application of the applicant that when the revisionist did not accept him to be tenant then necessity to restore the case arisen. From the perusal of the withdrawal application or from the perusal of the order dated 10.12.2003, it is crystal clear that no such condition was imposed by Mohd. Farooq or by the Court. The withdrawal application was moved without any coercion or undue influence. It has not been alleged by opposite party no.2 that he was withdrawing the reference case on the condition that he would be treated to be tenant of the property in question. The Court below has wrongly concluded that if the reference is restored, the multiplicity of the suit would decrease and the parties would be saved from any trouble. It has not been alleged by opposite party no.2 that he was withdrawing the reference case on the condition that he would be treated to be tenant of the property in question. The Court below has wrongly concluded that if the reference is restored, the multiplicity of the suit would decrease and the parties would be saved from any trouble. As the matter had already been settled and finalized by way of withdrawal, there was no occasion to entertain the application under Section 151 CPC after a gap of about 11 years and restore the reference to its original number. 14. Certainly it is abuse and misuse of the power and illegal exercise of the inherent power of the Court. More so such withdrawal order is revisable but no such procedure had been adopted by opposite party no.2 and by adopting a short cut method and by adopting illegal measure, the impugned order has been obtained which is factually and legally incorrect. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside and the revision is liable be allowed. 15. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the order dated 29.9.2014 passed by Waqf Tribunal/Civil Judge (S.D.), Meerut, is hereby quashed. 16. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Court below for necessary compliance.