JUDGMENT :

1. This civil revision has been instituted against the judgment and order dated 29.9.2014 passed by Waqf Tribunal/Civil Judge (S.D.), Meerut, in Misc. Case No. 17 of 2004 (Mohammad Faruk Vs. Sunni Central Board and Others), by which application 3C2 under Section 151 C.P.C. Moved by the applicant-Mohammad Farooq, was allowed at the cost of Rs. 5,00/-and the order passed on the withdrawal application on 10.12.2003 in reference/original suit no. 1294 of 1993 was recalled.

2. In brief, facts of the case are that Md. Farooq-plaintiff filed a case in the Court of Waqf Tribunal/Civil Judge (S.D.) Meerut, as reference no. 1294 of 1993 against Sunni Central Waqf Lucknow, Managing Committee and Waqf Qabristan Biradari Shah Khan, with the averments that he is owner of the house no. 169 (170) situtated in Mohalla Gulzar Ibrahim, Lisari Road, Halka No. 13, Meerut City, and is living with his family. The house was constructed about 60 years back and father of the plaintiff was the resident of the house in suit as owner with his family and after his death, the plaintiff inherited his right as son and is residing in the house as owner, the name of the petitioner is recorded as owner in the corporation Assessment Register. The house was not dedicated by his father or by him and it is his personal property.

3. On 2.11.1993 the plaintiff received a notice under Section 213 of the Nagar Mahapalika Act from which it is revealed that opposite party no.3 has applied for mutation of its name on the allegations that the property is a waqf property and the same has been registered by opposite party no.1 by order dated 12.9.1991. In the waqf register boundaries and house number are not given but since the opposite party no. 3 has applied for mutation hence the plaintiff is bound to get the order dated 12.9.1994 set-aside. The plaintiff was not given any notice by the opposite party before registering the house in dispute as waqf property and he was not knowing this fact before 2.11.1993. The order dated 12.9.1991 is illegal without jurisdiction and is liable to be set-aside. The plaintiff prayed for setting aside of the order dated 12.9.1991 regarding property in suit passed by U.P. Sunni Cetral Board of Waqf, Lucknow.

4. Defendant nos.2 & 3 appeared and filed written statement/objection and denied the facts of the plaintiff and in additional pleas, pleaded that the petition is miserably time barred and the plaintiff is stopped from challenging the nature of the property being part of Waqf Qabristan Biradary of Sheikhan known as Takia Shad Shah Langot, Meerut. The land beneath the malba of the house, which was erected with the permission of the then Mutwalli of the Waqf Qabristan, forms part of the big area spread over ten thousand square yards from time immemorial. The purpose of permitting the ancestors of the petitioner to reside within the boundaries of the Qabristan was to have a watch upon the waqf property, they did not enjoy and other privilege like ownership or lessee's rights. The petition has been filed on malafide grounds and vague allegations. The plaintiff has deliberately avoided to mention the names of his ancestor, who is alleged to have acquired the land and the mode of its acquisition, Khasra plot number and other details.

The real fact is that the land pertains to Khasra Plot No. 774 and other adjoining numbers, Mahal Lekhraj Mazbata, Qasba Meerut, and the then Mutwalli of Qabristan late Chaudhary Abdul Karim had allowed Mohd Hafiz father of the petitioner-plaintiff to occupy the land as a tenant for which a registered rent deed dated 6.5.1937 was executed between the parties as such the petitioner or his father can not claim ownership right of the property in question. The entire Qabristan was registered with the U.P.S.C. Board of Waqf Lucknow in the year 1970 and a committee of management was appointed for looking after the Waqf property. The petitioner or his late father had not challenged or asserted their title over the pr