Bonafide proceeding will continue.

The Civil Revision Petition filed underArticle 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of an order made in I.A. No. 380 of 2003 in O.S. No. 44 of 1952 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The revision petitioners were respondents before the Trial Judge in the interim application. The first respondent filed an application before the Subordinate Court seeking for a direction to transfer the papers relating to appointment of trustees to be made pursuant to the scheme decree in O.S. No. 44 of 1952 to be dealt with by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Chennai-4. The contention of the petitioner was that in terms of Wakf Act, 1995, more particularly, under Section 15 of the said Act, trustees will have to be appointed only by the Wakf Board.

3. ThePrincipal Subordinate Judge, after hearing both sides, by an order dated 1.9.2003 directed the transfer of the entire papers relating to appointment of trustees pursuant to the scheme decree made in O.S. No. 44 of 1952 to the second respondent, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. The contention was that once the Civil Court frames a scheme decree, it can only be dealt with by the Civil Court and neither the Wakf Board nor the Wakf Tribunal will have any jurisdiction over the same.

4. The Civil Revision Petition was admitted on 18.12.2003. An Interim stay was also granted in C.M.P. No. 20543 of 2003. Subsequently, one Abdul Khadhar filed an application for impleading himself in the Civil Revision Petition by filing C.M.P. No. 2708 of 2004. The said person stated that even though he was a third party in the Civil Revision Petition as he had filed an application in I.A. No. 110 of 2003 for the appointment of trustees and he being a male heir in the female line of the founder of the trust he should be made as party in the civil revision petition. He also stated that even though he had initiated action for the appointment of trustees, he was not impleaded. Further the existing office bearers‘ term was already over and therefore, there was urgent necessity to hear the matter. He was also impleaded by the order of this Court dated 27.9.2007.

5. During pendency of the Civil Revision Petition, Hazarath Nabi Sallalahu Alahi Vassallam Trust, represented by its Managing Director, A.K. Khalifulla, (first revision petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition) filed W.P. No. 3511 of 2006 and wanted to set aside the proceedings of the Wakf Board and consequently the press notification dated 4.4.2006 inviting applications for the appointment of trustees to the Wakf. This writ petition was admitted on 24.4.2006. In W.P.M.P. No. 3771 of 2006, only notice was ordered.

6. Thereafter, one S. Abdul Rahuman, who was the second petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition filed W.P. No. 4294 of 2006 and also questioned the very same paper publication as in the case of W.P. No. 3511 of 2006. The said writ petition was directed to be posted along with W.P. No. 3511 of 2006 and status quo was ordered by an order dated 24.5.2006.

7. One SMS. Syed Dastagir filed another W.P. No. 4334 of 2006 challenging the order of the Wakf Board dated 3.4.2006 which stated that as per the scheme decree in O.S. No. 44 of 1952, further amended by A.S. No. 666 of 1954 and by the order of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge in I.A. No. 380 of 2003 dated 1.9.2003, two trustees were to be appointed and that shortly announcement will be made in the Press. The said person claims that he was the grandson of the founder of the Trust and that the Wakf Board cannot appoint any person to the Board of Trustees. This writ petition was admitted on 31.5.2006 and directed to be posted along with other writ petitions.

8. All these matters came to be posted before this Court by the orders of the Honourable Mr. Justice P.D. DINAKARAN dated 1.8.2007. Accordingly, the matters were heard together.

9. Heard the arguments of Mr. G. Prabhu Rajadurai, learned coun