ORDER :

Being aggrieved by the order of the Telangana State Waqf Tribunal, Hyderabad in I.A.No.473 of 2017 in O.S.No.139 of 2016 by which the petition filed by the 3rd parties under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) r/w Section 151 CPC and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice to implead them as defendants in the main suit was dismissed, the present revision has been filed. The petitioners herein are 3rd parties to the suit proceedings. They moved an application before the Telangana State Waqf Tribunal, Hyderabad under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and sought to implead them as defendants in the above referred suit.

2. The 1st petitioner herein has filed his affidavit in support of the petition and claimed that an extent of Ac.08-12 gts., of land in Sy.No.500 at Sadashivpet of Medak District is waqf property duly surveyed by the Commissioner of Waqf, appointed by the State Government. Though the appointment was in late sixties, but due to paucity of funds the same was notified only in Gazette No.48-A dated 29.11.2001. The above said land is attached to Dargah Hzt Shah Mohammed and graveyard together with other attached property. It seems there are shops in the said properties. One Mohammed Moulana filed O.S.No.2 of 1997 against the 2nd respondent in respect of the same property. The suit was decreed by the Waqf Board without any appeal.

3. There was another suit filed by one Mr.Ramulu seeking ownership in respect of another portion vide O.S.No.114 of 1995 which was also decreed, but the Waqf Board did not file any appeal. Therefore, the petitioners have claimed that the Waqf Board is not taking care of the Waqf properties. The petitioners who are permanent residents of suit schedule property are highly interested in protecting rights of minorities, more particularly in saving Warq properties from encroachment. The petitioners are not happy with the way how the Waqf is dealing with the properties. Therefore, they want to be impleaded as defendants in the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs in respect of the above referred properties. The petitioners have claimed that they have no intention to protract litigation or creating any kind of complexity. Therefore, the present revision required to enable the Court to come to fair and just conclusion, thereby, they sought to be added as defendants in the main suit.

4. This petition was opposed by the respondents/plaintiffs. The Tribunal vide Order dated 22.09.2021 dismissed the application and the present revision is against the said order.

5. In the grounds, the petitioners have claimed that the trial Court committed an error by dismissing the petition without giving any cogent and legally acceptable reasons. The trial Court committed an error by complying the concept of “dominus litus” and erroneously held that when the plaintiffs did not intend to seek relief against the petitioners, they cannot be permitted as aggrieved and they cannot be added as parties to the suit.

6. The petitioners further stated that the trial Court failed to take the reasons mentioned by the petitioners into consideration and failed to understand the objection behind the Order 1 Rule 10 CPC which is mainly to bring all necessary parties on record. The dismissal of the petition by the petitioners would result the filing of another suit in respect of the same property, which is nothing but multiplicity of litigation, thereby they sought for setting aside the order of the tribunal and allow them to be impleaded as defendants in the said suit.

7. Heard both parties.

8. Now the point for consideration are :

1. Whether the petitioners are proper and necessary parties to O.S.No.139 of 2016? If so, whether the order is liable to be set aside?

2. Whether the Tribunal committed any mistake by dismissing the application filed by the petitioners?

9. POINT

As could be seen from the copies of petition filed by the petitioners and counter filed by the respondents/plaintiffs as well as the order impugned in the present revision, it seems, O.S.No.139 of 201