Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 8 (TS)

Md. Ejaz v. Margam Ramulu

2023-01-03

SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

body2023
ORDER : Being aggrieved by the order of the Telangana State Waqf Tribunal, Hyderabad in I.A.No.473 of 2017 in O.S.No.139 of 2016 by which the petition filed by the 3rd parties under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) r/w Section 151 CPC and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice to implead them as defendants in the main suit was dismissed, the present revision has been filed. The petitioners herein are 3rd parties to the suit proceedings. They moved an application before the Telangana State Waqf Tribunal, Hyderabad under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and sought to implead them as defendants in the above referred suit. 2. The 1st petitioner herein has filed his affidavit in support of the petition and claimed that an extent of Ac.08-12 gts., of land in Sy.No.500 at Sadashivpet of Medak District is waqf property duly surveyed by the Commissioner of Waqf, appointed by the State Government. Though the appointment was in late sixties, but due to paucity of funds the same was notified only in Gazette No.48-A dated 29.11.2001. The above said land is attached to Dargah Hzt Shah Mohammed and graveyard together with other attached property. It seems there are shops in the said properties. One Mohammed Moulana filed O.S.No.2 of 1997 against the 2nd respondent in respect of the same property. The suit was decreed by the Waqf Board without any appeal. 3. There was another suit filed by one Mr.Ramulu seeking ownership in respect of another portion vide O.S.No.114 of 1995 which was also decreed, but the Waqf Board did not file any appeal. Therefore, the petitioners have claimed that the Waqf Board is not taking care of the Waqf properties. The petitioners who are permanent residents of suit schedule property are highly interested in protecting rights of minorities, more particularly in saving Warq properties from encroachment. The petitioners are not happy with the way how the Waqf is dealing with the properties. Therefore, they want to be impleaded as defendants in the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs in respect of the above referred properties. The petitioners have claimed that they have no intention to protract litigation or creating any kind of complexity. Therefore, the present revision required to enable the Court to come to fair and just conclusion, thereby, they sought to be added as defendants in the main suit. 4. This petition was opposed by the respondents/plaintiffs. The petitioners have claimed that they have no intention to protract litigation or creating any kind of complexity. Therefore, the present revision required to enable the Court to come to fair and just conclusion, thereby, they sought to be added as defendants in the main suit. 4. This petition was opposed by the respondents/plaintiffs. The Tribunal vide Order dated 22.09.2021 dismissed the application and the present revision is against the said order. 5. In the grounds, the petitioners have claimed that the trial Court committed an error by dismissing the petition without giving any cogent and legally acceptable reasons. The trial Court committed an error by complying the concept of “dominus litus” and erroneously held that when the plaintiffs did not intend to seek relief against the petitioners, they cannot be permitted as aggrieved and they cannot be added as parties to the suit. 6. The petitioners further stated that the trial Court failed to take the reasons mentioned by the petitioners into consideration and failed to understand the objection behind the Order 1 Rule 10 CPC which is mainly to bring all necessary parties on record. The dismissal of the petition by the petitioners would result the filing of another suit in respect of the same property, which is nothing but multiplicity of litigation, thereby they sought for setting aside the order of the tribunal and allow them to be impleaded as defendants in the said suit. 7. Heard both parties. 8. Now the point for consideration are : 1. Whether the petitioners are proper and necessary parties to O.S.No.139 of 2016? If so, whether the order is liable to be set aside? 2. Whether the Tribunal committed any mistake by dismissing the application filed by the petitioners? 9. POINT As could be seen from the copies of petition filed by the petitioners and counter filed by the respondents/plaintiffs as well as the order impugned in the present revision, it seems, O.S.No.139 of 2016 has been filed in respect of Ac.4.6 gts of land in Sy.No.500/A/1 and Sy.No.500/A/2 situated at Sadashivpet Village, Medak District. 10. The respondents/plaintiffs have claimed that the suit schedule property is a patta land of Mohd. Ismail and his brother Mohd. Moulana. Whereas, the respondents/Waqf Board claimed that it is Waqf property. 10. The respondents/plaintiffs have claimed that the suit schedule property is a patta land of Mohd. Ismail and his brother Mohd. Moulana. Whereas, the respondents/Waqf Board claimed that it is Waqf property. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioners herein filed the above referred petition and sought to be added as defendants to the main suit. The application was filed under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC which reads as follows : “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, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.” 11. As per the averments made in the plaint, it was the specific case of respondents/plaintiffs that the suit schedule property is in their possession. Their names were reflected in the revenue records. There is no record to believe that the property belongs to Waqf Board. They sought for declaration and perpetual injunction against Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Board and the Managing Committee of Dargah Hzt Shah Mohammed. It was not the case that there was interference by 3rd parties. The petitioners herein except saying their interest in protecting the property could not substantiate as to how their presence will protect the property. It is for the respondent/Wakf Board to take care of the properties. The Tribunal while dismissing the application made an observation that the petitioners are not necessary parties and even in their absence, effective decree can be passed by the tribunal. It is not the case of petitioners that they are interested in the property. Therefore, the Court below rightly dismissed the application. 12. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, the principles of dominus litus, according to which the plaintiffs may choose the person against whom they wish to litigate, cannot be compelled to add any person against whom they did not seek any relief. Therefore, the Court below rightly dismissed the application. 12. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, the principles of dominus litus, according to which the plaintiffs may choose the person against whom they wish to litigate, cannot be compelled to add any person against whom they did not seek any relief. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the observations while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, thereby the revision is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the revision is dismissed. As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.