IMPORTANT POINTS
Power under Order VII Rule 11, CPC should be exercised in case of a suit manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue.
After Gazette notification, High Court cannot direct reconsideration of surveyor’s report.
Anybody aggrieved by non inclusion of a property in Gazette notification notifying Wakf properties should raise the dispute u/s 6 within one year.

JUDGMENT

Mohan M.Shantanagoudar,J.

Leave granted.

2. The order dated 07.09.2016 passed in Civil Revision Petition No.2472/2016 by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad allowing the Revision Petition and setting aside the order dated 08.03.2016 on I.A.No.458/2015 in OS No.59/2013 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Tribunal at Hyderabad is called in this Appeal. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:

3. The respondent herein filed suit No.59/2013 before Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Tribunal at Hyderabad seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated 12.1.2013 in respect of the land bearing Survey No.113 admeasuring 4 acres 72 cents situated at Pernamitta village, Prakasam District, State of Andhra Pradesh. Certain consequential reliefs are also sought for. It is the case of plaintiff that Survey Nos.112 and 113 to an extent of 18 acres 88 cents situated at Pernamitta village were notified in the Official Gazette of Wakf Board dated 28.6.1962 at serial No.966 and were also surveyed by the Survey Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Wakf Act. The part of Survey No.113 to an extent of 4 acres 72 cents was purchased by the defendant through the sale deed dated 12.1.2013 executed by Mr. Alluri Koteshwar Rao (Defendant No.6) in whose name property was standing. Plaintiff claims to be Mutwalli of the Wakf. The sum and substance of the plaintiff’s case is that the defendant Nos.1 to 5 have purchased the suit property from a private person though the said property is the Wakf property and therefore the sale deed dated 12.1.2013 does not convey any right, title or interest in favour of the defendants 1 to 5.

4. It is the case of the appellant/defendant No.1 that the property was and is not a Wakf property inasmuch as it was never notified as a Wakf property; though official gazette was published as back as on 28.6.1962, the property does not find place in the gazette notifying the same as Wakf property; it is a private property and that he had purchased the same through a valid sale deed.

5. During the pendency of suit, an application was filed by the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 including the appellant herein under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called as ‘CPC’) for rejection of plaint. The said application was allowed by the Wakf Tribunal on 8th March, 2016. On revision by the plaintiff, the order of rejection of plaint passed by the Wakf Tribunal is set aside by the High Court.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant taking us through the impugned judgment of the High Court submitted that this is a fit case wherein the plaint ought to be rejected at the threshold inasmuch as the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and the suit is barred by law. The property in question is not notified in the Gazette as a Wakf Property at any point of time till this date and hence it is not open for the respondent to file this suit on the presumption that the property in question is a Wakf property. Since the property is not a Wakf property, the Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. That though the notification issued containing the list of certain Wakf properties was gazetted by the Wakf Board as early as in the year 1962, the High Court is not justified in raising doubt in the year 2013 about such notification which had been remained unchallenged for more than 50 years. It is not open for the respondent to generate the litigation only to harass the appellant.

7. Per contra, advocate for the respondent submitted that though the gazette notification did not contain the property in question as a Wakf property, the Survey Report disclosed the property in question as a Wakf property and therefore the defect while publishing the Gazette notification needs to be rectified. He submitted that the High Court is justified in passing the impugned judgment after verifying the