Aurangabad Smart City Development Corporation Limited vs Maharashtra State Board of Waqf

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Bom) 70

N.J.JAMADAR
Aurangabad Smart City Development Corporation Limited – Appellant
Versus
Maharashtra State Board of Waqf – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Mr. P.D. Jarare.
For the Respondent: Mr. Y.B. Pathan.

Judgement Key Points

What is the effect of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on rejection of plaint where prayer for possession is absent? What is the proper scope of a suit for injunctive relief when the property is declared as Wakf Property, and possession is not sought? Whether a plaint can be rejected only as a whole under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, or can be rejected in part, in light of Sejal Glass and related precedents?

What is the effect of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on rejection of plaint where prayer for possession is absent?

What is the proper scope of a suit for injunctive relief when the property is declared as Wakf Property, and possession is not sought?

Whether a plaint can be rejected only as a whole under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, or can be rejected in part, in light of Sejal Glass and related precedents?

JUDGMENT :

N.J. JAMADAR, J.

1. The legality, propriety and correctness of an order passed by the Maharashtra State Waqf Tribunal, Aurangabad, dated 11th February, 2021 on an application (Exhibit No. 21) preferred by the applicant No. 2-defendant No. 1 for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code), whereby the said application came to be rejected, is assailed in this revision application.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts leading to this application can be stated as under:

(a) The respondent-plaintiff is the Board constituted under the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995 (Act 1995). It is a supervisory authority over the Waqf Institutions and properties throughout the State of Maharashtra. The land bearing Survey No. 210 which admeasures 28 acres 39 gunthas, including CTS No. 2340 admeasuring 10168.25 square meters (suit property), is the Waqf Property dedicated for the services of Jama Masjid, Aurangabad. In the record of rights, the suit property was shown in the name of Mohammad Azeemuddin, Mutawalli, who was caretaker of the land of the Jama Masjid. Pursuant to the survey of Waqf conducted under the provisions of the Wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Bom) 70

N.J.JAMADARAurangabad Smart City Development Corporation Limited – AppellantVersusMaharashtra State Board of Waqf – Respondent

What is the effect of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on rejection of plaint where prayer for possession is absent?

What is the proper scope of a suit for injunctive relief when the property is declared as Wakf Property, and possession is not sought?

Whether a plaint can be rejected only as a whole under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, or can be rejected in part, in light of Sejal Glass and related precedents?

Cases Referred (6)

N.J.JAMADAR
Aurangabad Smart City Development Corporation Limited – Appellant
Versus
Maharashtra State Board of Waqf – Respondent