The court establishes that a necessary party must be impleaded in a pending case for effective adjudication and supports the Tribunal's decision to allow witness recall for cross-examination.

JUDGMENT :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Nazneen, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. By order dated 02.04.2025, this Court has decided to proceed with the hearing of this case in the absence of other respondents as even after due service of notice against them, they were absent without any steps.

3. This civil revision petition has been registered on filing of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, namely, Anowaruddin Wakf Estate impugning two orders passed by the learned Presiding Officer Wakf Tribunal, Kamrup (Metro).

4. Firstly, the order dated 18.04.2016 passed in W.T. Misc.(J) Case No. 4 of 2015 arising out of W.T. Case No. 1/2009, whereby the application filed by the present petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to implead the Punjab National Bank as a party in the case was rejected.

5. Secondly, the order dated 13.06.2016 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, Kamrup(Metro), Guwahati on the petition No. 319/2016 dated 16.05.2016 arising out of WT Case No. 1/2009, whereby, the application filed by the defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 under Order 18 Rule 17, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for recalling of the PW-2, namely, Sri Khagen Chandra Kachari was allowed.

6. It is pertinent to mention herein that after filing of the instant Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner had filed another Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which was registered as CRP No.230/2017, wherein the petitioner has again impugned the order dated 18.04.2016 passed in W.T. Misc.(J) Case No. 4 of 2015 arising out of W.T. Case No. 1/2009 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal. Though, it appears that the order dated 18.04.2016 has already been impugned by the petitioner in CRP No. 221/2016(instant revision petition), however, as more than one order was impugned in the instant CRP No.221/2016, hence, the petitioner had filed a subsequent Civil Revision No. 230/2017.

7. Though, as per Rule 20 (2) of CIVIL COURT RULES and Orders of the Gauhati High Court, applications in regard to distinct subject-matter shall have to be made in separate petitions and as per Rule 20 (3) of the said rules, the petition should not ordinarily contain more than one prayer or one series of alternative prayers of same kind, however, as both the order dated 18.04.2016 as well as 13.06.2016 have been impugned in this revision petition(CRP No. 221/2016), this Court proposes to consider the grievance of the petitioner in respect of both the impugned orders in the instant Civil Revision Petition only for the sake of convenience.

8. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that the petitioner, namely, Anowaruddin Wakf Estate as plaintiff had filed a Title Suit No. 190/2004 which was re-numbered as W.T. Case No. 1/2009 which is pending before the learned Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati. In the suit, the petitioner has claimed the relief of declaration of its right, title and interest over the suit land as well as for grant of injunction against the defendants.

9. In the main case, the petitioner had also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for grant of temporary injunction. The