Mandate of Section 32 of the Wakf Act, 1995 for the Wakf Board to be a party in the suit.

1. The Petitioner is the Defendant in W.O.S. No. 419 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. The Respondent is the Plaintiff in the Suit. The Respondent/Plaintiff has filed the said Suit for a decree, to direct the Defendant to deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff. According to the Respondent/Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is a Mosque, which has let out the suit property to the Defendant for non-residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,520/-. Since, the Defendant has committed default in payment of rent, according to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is liable to be evicted from the suit property. In the Written Statement, the Defendant while disputing his liability as to the vacant possession has also stated that the Suit is not maintainable as the same is barred by limitation.

2. Appropriate issues were settled and trial went on. Finally, the Suit was reserved for judgment. At that time, the Respondent herein filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 453 of 2012, seeking to reopen the case for the purpose of enabling himself to file an Interlocutory Application to implead the Wakf Board as the second Plaintiff in the Suit. The said Interlocutory Application was allowed by the lower Court, by an Order dated 06.07.2012. Challenging the same, the Petitioner is before this Court with this Civil Revision Petition.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Respondent and I have also perused the records carefully.

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the lower Court was not right in allowing the Interlocutory Application, after the case was reserved for judgment. The learned Counsel would further submit that the Interlocutory Application was filed only with a view to drag on the proceedings. He would further add that though, the Suit was pending from the year 2007, no steps were taken on time to implead the Wakf Board as a party to the Suit.

5. But, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent would submit that in view of the stand taken in the Written Statement and also in view of the submissions made during the arguments before the lower Court that under Section 32 of the Wakf Act, 1995, the Wakf Board should be a party, the Interlocutory Application came to be filed. The learned Counsel would further submit that the suit property is a public property, which can neither be allowed to be misused nor the claim be defeated on such a technical ground.

6. I have considered the above submissions.

7. In my considered opinion, the Respondent need not file an Interlocutory Application to reopen the evidence. At any stage, he can file a Petition to implead any party. However, under the impression that such Interlocutory Application could be filed only before the evidence is closed, the Interlocutory Application has been filed. But, on such a technical ground, this Court cannot allow the right of the Plaintiff to prosecute the Suit to be defeated. As has been mentioned before this Court, Section 32 of the Wakf Act, 1995, mandates that the Wakf Board should be a party.

8. It is brought to the notice of this Court that already Impleading Petition has been filed and the same has been numbered as I.A. No. 725 of 2012 in W.O.S. No. 419 of 2007 and the same is pending.

9. Having regard to above, I am inclined to issue a direction to the lower Court to dispose of the Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 725 of 2012 in W.O.S. No. 419 of 2007, after affording sufficient opportunity to the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible.

10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, however, with a direction to the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, to dispose of the I.A. No. 725 of 2012 in W.O.S. No. 419 of 2007, after affording sufficient opportunity to the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.