IMPORTANT POINT
Forum cannot be changed by filing application for amendment.

R.S. Ramanathan, J.—Civil Revision Petition (N.P.D) No. 1607 of 2010, is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 31.03.2010, passed in O.S. No. 75 of 2001, on the file of the Wakf Tribunal/Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.

2. Civil Revision Petition (N.P.D) No. 2916 of 2010, is filed against the order, dated 17.02.2010, passed in I.A. No. 51 of 2010, in O.S. No. 75 of 2001, on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.

3. Both the Revision Petitions, viz., C.R.P.(NPD) Nos. 1607 & 2916 of 2010, are filed by the third defendant/Muthavalli in the suit in O.S. No. 75 of 2001.

4. Civil Revision Petition (N.P.D) No. 2320 of 2010 is filed by the defendants 1 and 2, against the judgment and decree, dated 31.03.2010, passed in O.S. No. 75 of 2001, on the file of the Wakf Tribunal/Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.

5. As the parties in all the Revision Petitions are one and the same, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties concerned, all these Revision Petitions were heard together and a common order is pronounced.

6. Originally, the first respondent/Municipality filed the suit in O.S. No. 75 of 2001 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Panruti, on 30.03.2001. The said plaint was returned, on 02.04.2001, stating that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction and therefore, the plaint was re-presented before the Subordinate Court, Cuddalore, on 03.04.2001.

7. The said suit was filed by the first respondent/Municipality, against the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Chief Executive Officer of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Muthavalli of Larabsha Dharga and Mr.Vijayaganapathy. The original prayer in the suit was for the relief of declaration, declaring that the plaintiff, viz., the first respondent herein has got title over the suit property, for the relief of declaration, declaring that the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, in R.C. No. 3273/B4/98, dated 29.09.1999, signed on 19.11.1999, is illegal, null and void and also for the relief of injunction.

8. The case of the first respondent/Municipality in the original plaint was that, the properties mentioned in the suit are classified as ‘Latrine Poramboke’ and ‘Vaikkal Poramboke’ and the said properties are situate, within the Panruti Municipal limit. Therefore, the first respondent/Municipality has got right to maintain those properties for public purpose and the suit properties also vested with the Panruti Municipality and the Revenue Records would prove that the properties belonged to the Panruti Municipality and the first respondent/Municipality also constructed a shopping complex in the suit properties. During the year 1997, the Muthavalli of Larabsha Dharga issued a notice, claiming that the properties belong to Larabsha Dharga, and they are Wakf properties and the Chief Executive Officer of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board also passed an order, directing the first respondent/Municipality to handover possession of the properties in favour of the Larabsha Dharga and therefore, the suit was filed for declaration, that the first respondent has got title over the suit properties and for declaration, declaring that the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, dated 29.09.1999, is illegal, null and void.

9. During the pendency of the suit before the Subordinate Court, Cuddalore, the first respondent/Municipality filed I.A. No. 718 of 2004, to implead the District Collector, Cuddalore, as the sixth defendant in the suit and that was allowed, by order dated 10.11.2004. Thereafter, the first respondent/Municipality filed I.A. No. 719 of 2004, for amendment of the plaint, by changing the Forum from the Civil Court to Wakf Tribunal and to substitute the first prayer, viz., declaration prayer, stating that the State Government is the absolute owner of the suit properties and the first respondent/Municipality has got right to maintain the suit properties for public purpose and that Application was allowed, by order, dated