1. Animadverting upon the order dated 5.3.2012 passed by the Principal District Judge, Chelglepet, in I.A.No.159 of 2011 in O.S.No.11 of 1934, these civil revision petitions are filed.

2. Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of these civil revision petitions would run thus:

(i) The Wakf by name, Hazarath Syed Sha Hamed Owlia Darga, is covered by a scheme decree. While so, the District Court, which happened to be the Court, which formulated the scheme earlier, every now and then passed the orders appointing Muthavallies and also enabling the wakf to function.

(ii) In those circumstances, the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, represented by its Chief Executive Officer, Chennai-1, filed I.A.No.159 of 2011 seeking the following relief:

"to pass orders transferring and vesting the administration and general superintendence of the suit wakf, namely,and its properties including the appointment of the trustees as per the scheme decree."

(extracted as such)

(iii) Mahboob Basha-the petitioner in C.R.P.No.1816 of 2012 filed the counter raising various pleas.

(iv) After hearing both sides, the Scheme Court, namely, the Principal District Judge, Chengleput, passed the order dated 5.3.2012, the operative portion of which would run thus:

"17.) In the result, the petition is allowed with the following conditions. The petitioner Tamil Nadu Wakf Board has to examine the scheme decree passed in O.S.No.11 of 1934 and enforced its authority as provided under the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995. It is open to the petitioner Wakf Board to examine whether or not the appointment of fresh office bearers under the scheme should be made afresh or permit the present set of office bearers for any particular length of time. In order to avoid practical difficulty ith is further directed that the present set of office bearers have to continue for a period of three months and the petitioner Board is also at liberty to appoint or authorise any of its Executive Officer to function along with the present set of office bearers for the proper and clean administration of the Wakf and its properties during the above period of three months."

(extracted as such)

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, Mahboob Basha, who claimed to be the trustee appointed by the Scheme Court earlier, filed the C.R.P.No.1816 of 2010.

4. Challenging the same order, one other C.R.P., namely, C.R.P.No.2164 of 2012 was presented with the leave petition by the Treasurer of the Wakf, namely, S.Y.Umar Khan, who was also earlier appointed by the Scheme Court, on the ground that he was not impleaded in the I.A.No.159 of 2011 and heard before passing the said order.

5. Heard all concerned.

6. The point for consideration is as to whether the Scheme Court, even after the coming into vogue of the Wakf Act, 1995, and more specifically the provisions as contained in Section 32 of the Act, had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order?

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.1816 of 2012-Mahboob Basha would pilot his arguements, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:

(i) The Chief Executive Officer had no jurisdiction to petition the Executing Court and he was not authorised by the Board also to file such application and such an official could not have filed, legally, the said petition, but the Court failed to take note of the same.

(ii) The Wakf itself was not impleaded as one of the respondents.

Accordingly, he would pray for setting aside the impugned order.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.2164 of 2010-S.Y.Umar Khan would put forth and set forth his arguements, the gist and kernal of them would run thus:

Even though S.Y.Umar Khan (the petitioner in C.R.P.No.2164 of 2012) happened to be the Treasurer of the said Wakf, he was not arrayed as one of the respondents and simply the order was passed behind his back, warranting interference in the revision. At any r