JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners and the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are represented by their respective learned advocates.

2. I have heard the learned advocates for the petitioners, opposite party no. 1 and opposite party no.2 at length.

3. The instant revisional application is now taken up for passing appropriate order.

4. The instant revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of an order dated 09.07.2018, passed by the learned Waqf Tribunal in Suit No. 22 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the said Tribunal decreed the said suit as filed by the plaintiff/ opposite party no.1, on contest against defendant nos.12 and 13 and ex parte against the rest. The defendants, against whom such ex parte decree was passed by the said Tribunal, felt aggrieved and preferred the instant revisional application.

5. In support of the instant revisional application, learned advocate for the revisionists at the very outset draws attention of this court to the certified copy of the impugned order. It is contended that on perusal of the impugned order, it would reveal that the present revisionists entered their appearance in the said suit before the said Tribunal and filed their written statement claiming, inter alia, the suit plots have been vested in the State and, therefore, the plaintiff/ opposite party no. 1 cannot get a decree as prayed for before the Tribunal. It is further contended that thereafter for some reason or other the present revisionists failed to appear before the Tribunal in the said suit and thus failed to substantiate their contention with regard to vesting of such land which is why an ex parte decree has been passed against them. It is contended on behalf of the revisionists that in the event the present revisionists may be given an opportunity to place their defence afresh in the said suit and to contest the said suit before the learned Tribunal by setting aside the impugned judgement, appropriate justice would be subserved to the present revisionists. Drawing attention to the annexures to the instant revisional application, it is contended that the present petitioners’ contention that the suit plot of land has been vested with the State is prima facie correct. It is thus argued that it is a fit case for setting aside the impugned order and for giving liberty to the present revisionits to contest the said suit before the learned trial court afresh.

6. Per contra, learned advocate for the opposite party no.2/ the Board of Wakf (hereinafter referred to as ‘Board’) submits before this court that on perusal of the certified copy of the impugned order, it would not reveal that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned order caused any miscarriage of justice as against the present revisionists and thus, the instant revisional application is not maintainable.

7. Learned advocate for the Board, in course of his submission, draws attention of this court to the Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995. He also placed his reliance upon the two reported decisions namely, ‘Kiran Devi vs. Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board and Others’ reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 280 and ‘Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and Others vs. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others’ reported in (2010) 1 SCC 217. Placing his reliance to the aforesaid statutory provision and upon the aforesaid two reported decisions it has been contended by the learned advocate for the opposite party no.2/the Board that it is settled law that the jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution of India should not be exercised as a cloak of an appeal in disguise and on the contrary the same is to be exercised very sparingly and only when it can be shown that serious miscarriage of justice has been occurred in passing the impugned judgement. It is contended that on bare perusal of the impugned order it would reveal that the learned Tribunal has passed a reasoned and justified order for which the exercise of power under article 227 cannot be called for.

8. Learned advo