ORDER :

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 15.09.2017 in I.A.No.139 of 2017 in O.S.No.800 of 2016 (Old O.S.No.24 of 2016) passed by the Telangana State Waqf Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) dismissing the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 C.P.C.

2. The petitioners are defendant 2, 3, 5, 8 to 11, 13, 14 and 15 and they filed an application to reject plaint in O.S.No.24 of 2016 on the sole ground that the respondents/plaintiffs are not interested persons within the definition under Section 3(k) of the Wakf Act, 1995 and that Mumtaz Yaruddowla Wakf is only an educational institution and not Mosque or any other religious trust, to perform prayers etc. by any person. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not interested persons within the definition of Section 3(k) of the Wakf Act and thereby there was no cause of action to file the suit and that it is barred by Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed counter denying material allegations inter alia contending that the petition is filed to circumvent the law and to avoid filing written statement in the main suit and that the petitioners did not state any specific provision of law barring the maintainability of the suit and that the assertions made in the petition that the petitioner did not fall within the ambit of Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act is not correct and respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs would fall within the definition of Section 3(k) of the Act and the suit is maintainable in accordance with law. It is further contended that according to Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., plaint can be rejected, when it does not disclose cause of action, where the relief claimed is under valued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so, where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so,, where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law, where it is not filed in duplicate, where the plaintiff fails to comply sub-rule (2) of Rule 9, where the plaintiff fails to comply sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 and prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. Respondent No.13 filed counter. Respondents 8, 11, 12 and 14 adopted the counter filed by respondent No.13. They also denied the allegations made in the petition while asserting that they are baseless. It is specifically contended that Mahboob Alam Khan has no locus standi to file petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed and that as per 3 resolution dated 04.11.2013, respondent No.8 got appointed as President of Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf, Mirza Khusru Ali Baig was appointed as Secretary and Respondent No.13 as member of the Muntaz Yarud Dowla Wakf along with other members of the Majlis-e-Umna of Muntaz Yarud Dowla Wakf and the same was recorded in Wakf Board by its proceedings dated 27.11.2013 and confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.38308 of 2013 and W.A.No.213 of 2014. Mahboob Alam Khan challenged the said resolution and proceedings before the Tribunal in O.A.No.64 of 2013, which is pending for adjudication. Finally asserted that a crime was registered in Crime No.92 of 2014 and the same is pending for investigation and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Upon hearing argument of both counsel concluded that the plaint does not disclose cause of action and that it is not barred by any law to attract Clauses (a) or (d) of Order VII Rule 11.

6. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raising various contentions mainly on the ground that Section 83(2) of the Act envisages any mutahwalli, person interested in a Wakf or any other person aggrieved by an order,