JUDGMENT

Karamjit Singh, J. (Oral)

Instant revision petition has been filed by petitioner/plaintiff for setting aside judgment and decree dated 24.8.2015 passed by the Tribunal, Wakf Board, Patiala (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration to the effect that the plaintiff-Trust is owner-in-possession of the suit property and that notice dated 17.2.2012 issued under Section 54(1) of the WAKF ACT and order dated 17.10.2012 passed by Estate Officer, Punjab Wakf Board are illegal null and void, has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed suit for declaration to the effect that the petitioner-Trust is owner-in-possession of the suit property No.B-II/997 measuring 200 square yards situated in Mohalla Aap, Nabha wherein the petitioner-Trust is running branch of S.D. Boys High School and for further declaration to the effect that notice dated 17.2.2012 issued under Section 54(1) of WAKF ACT and order dated 17.10.2012 passed by Punjab Wakf Board against Jatinder Kumar Bansal are null and void.

3. The suit was contested by the respondents, who filed written statement contesting the claim of the petitioner. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the Tribunal:-

i. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the property in dispute, as mentioned in the head note of the suit? OPP

ii. Whether the impugned notice dated 17.2.2012 and the consequent order dated 17.10.2012 are illegal null and void? OPP

iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP

iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

v. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

vi. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the Court, if so its effect? OPD

vii. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 89 of Wakf Act?

viii. Whether the suit is barred by principles of resjudicata? OPD

ix. Relief.

4. Both the parties led evidence. Counsel for the plaintiff examined PW-1 Amrit Lal; PW-2 Barjinder Lal; PW-3 Tirlok Batta; PW-4 Subhash Chand, Clerk, Municipal Committee, Nabha; and PW-5 Sukhdev Sharma, Vice President, S.D. Educational Trust Nabha, who tendered documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

5. On the other hand, the counsel for the defendants examined DW-1 Mohamad Arshraf, Estate Officer, Punjab Wakf Board, who proved documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D6, which also includes Notification dated 29.5.1971.

6. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the Tribunal decided issues No.1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 against the plaintiff and consequently the suit was dismissed by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 24.8.2015.

7. The counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner was non-suited for want of notice under Section 89 of WAKF ACT , by the Tribunal. That actually mandatory notice as per the provisions of Section 89 of WAKF ACT was issued to the respondents by the petitioner before the filing of the suit and the Copy of the same was marked as Ex.P9 in its evidence by the petitioner. That however, the Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment did not take into consideration the said notice and wrongly concluded that the suit is not maintainable for want of statutory notice as per provisions of Section 89 WAKF ACT .

8. The counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the findings of the Tribunal with regard to issue No.8 are also not sustainable. That while deciding issue No.8, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the suit of the petitioner is barred by principle of res-judicata on the ground that previously also suit for title regarding suit prop