Back
2025 Supreme(RAJ) 443
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI, J
RAJASTHAN BOARD OF MUSLIM WAQF – Appellant
Versus
SHRI NEELKANTH SEWA SANSTHAN – Respondent
CW / 12553 / 2021
Mr. Usman Ghani For Petitioner(s), Mr. Vinay Jain For Respondent(s)
A party seeking impleadment must demonstrate their relevance and necessity for adjudication, supported by adequate evidence, particularly in cases involving property claims.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ petition challenging the order of the Civil Judge regarding impleadment in a suit for injunction against construction on land claimed as Waqf property - The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the property in question is indeed Waqf property, thus the trial court's rejection of the impleadment application was upheld. (Paras 1, 3, 7)
(B) Civil Procedure Code - Order 1 Rule 10 - The court emphasized the necessity for a party to demonstrate their relevance for adjudication in a suit, reiterating that mere claims without supporting documents are insufficient for impleadment. (Paras 4, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to be impleaded in a suit filed by the respondents against the Municipal Council for an injunction on construction in a graveyard, claiming the land is Waqf property. The trial court dismissed the application for impleadment.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner could not prove the land was Waqf property, affirming the trial court's decision.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was a necessary party for the adjudication of the suit regarding the construction on the claimed Waqf property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner failed to provide adequate evidence to establish the land as Waqf property, thus not qualifying for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's findings on evidence (Para 7) |
| 2. writ petition dismissed (Para 8) |
Order :
1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by an appropriate writ, order, or direction, (i) The impugned order dated 01.03.2021 (Annex.8), passed by the Civil Judge, East, Bhilwara in Civil Original Suit No.53/2020 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) The application dated 10.08.2020 (Annexure- 5) filed under under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by the petitioner-applicant Rajasthan Board of Muslim Waqf may kindly be allowed and Rajasthan Board of Muslim Waqf may kindly be impleaded as party defendant in Civil Original Suit No.53/2020 pending in the Court of Civil Judge, East, Bhilwara
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit (Annexure-1) for permanent and mandatory injunction on the construction of hall in Kabristan raised by the Municipal Council, Bhilwara. Also, an application (Annexure-2) seeking temporary injunction was filed along with the plaint. Subsequently, the learned trial court granted interim temporary injunction vide order dated 01.06.2020 (Annexure- 4) and restrained all the parties to maintain status quo of the record and possession. Thereafter, an application (Annexure-5) under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC was filed by the petitioner for impleadment as party defendant in the pending suit which was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 01.03.2021 (Annexure-8). Being aggrieved with the same, the writ petition has been preferred.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has committed an error while rejecting the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC as the applicant- petitioner is a necessary party for adjudication of the suit. He further submits that the respondents-plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 have sought injunction against the construction of a hall in graveyard by the Municipal Council, Bhilwara, however, the petitioner submits that the said construction would be raised on the land which is a Waqf property, therefore the petitioner ought to be impleaded.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the construction of a hall is on the land falling in Aaraji No.1620 and the plaintiffs have also stated in their plaint that this land has been recorded in the name of Municipal Council, Bhilwara upon which the hall would be constructed. He further submits that the copy of the register of Waqf property along with the other documents clearly reflects that the land falling in old Khasra No.4782 is a Waqf property. He further submits that the hall would be constructed on graveyard situated near Bada Talab Ward No.3, Pur, Bhilwara for which the work order has been issued by the Municipal Council, Bhilwara. He thus submits the subject matter of the suit is the said work order issued by the Municipal Council, Bhilwara dated 03.01.2020 (Annexure-1) and, inasmuch as the said property is vesting with Waqf Board, therefore, the said order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner-applicant has failed to show that the property vests with the Waqf Board. He also submits that in the plaint, they have specifically prayed that no construction may be raised in the light of work order dated 03.01.2020 (Annexure-1) on the land falling in Aaraji No.1620 admeasuring 4 bigha 10 biswa which is Gair Mumkin Pal. He also submits that the learned trial court has rightly passed the order while rejecting the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. This Court finds that the petitioner is unable to demonstrate before this Court in absence of relevant documents that the property in question, where the construction is likely to be raised, is a waqf property.
