This revision petition is filed by the defendant No.2 in

O.S.No.22/2021

pending

consideration

before

the

Wakf

Tribunal, Bengaluru challenging the order dated 12.09.2022

passed therein by which the application filed by him under Rule

Order VII Rule 11(a) of the code of Civil Procedure was

rejected.

The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they

were arrayed before the Trial Court.

The petitioner herein was defendant No.2 while

respondents 1 and 2 herein were the plaintiffs and respondent

No.3 was the 1st defendant. The suit in O.S.22/2021 was filed

for the following reliefs:

a)

Set-aside

the

settlement

scheme

of

Management of 2nd Defendant-Mosque made by

- 3 -

the

1st

defendant-Board

by

its

order

No.

KSBA/SOA/17/BNU(S)2021-22, dated:06.12.2021

produced at Annexure-'C'.

b) Pass such other orders/directions as this

Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and

circumstances of this case in the interest of

justice and equity.

Plaintiffs filed an application under Section 151 of the

Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 83(5) of the Wakf

Act, 1995, for stay of the order impugned before the Tribunal.

They had also filed an application under Section 151 of the

Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 89 of the Wakf Act,

1995 seeking dispensation of notice to the 1^st defendant. The

trial Court after considering the applications filed, dispensed

issuance of prior notice to the 1^st defendant/Board and

dismissed the application filed for stay of the order impugned.

4.

Later, the Wakf Board filed its statement of

objections and also filed an application under Order VII Rule

11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure contending that the suit

before the Tribunal against the Board was not maintainable, as

60 days prior notice was not issued to the Board. The Tribunal

- 4 -

in terms of its order, which is impugned in this revision petition,

rejected the application on the ground that the 1^st defendant

has already filed its statement of objections and that the

question whether the notice is required or not, is a matter to be

considered at the time of trial. Being aggrieved by the said

order, the present revision petition is filed.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/2nd defendant

submits that the requirement under Section 89 of the Wakf Act,

1995 to issue prior notice is not without any purpose. He

submits that the purpose is that the Board should not be

caught unaware by an order of the Tribunal and that it should

be given sufficient time to respond. He submits that Section 89

is not akin to Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure which

provides for the power to dispense issuance of prior notice. He

submits that Section 89 of the Wakf Act strictly provides that

when a notice had to be issued, the plaintiffs cannot invoke the

power of the Civil Court under Section 151 of CPC to dispense

the statutory notice. He submits that cause of action to file a

proceeding before the Tribunal would not arise unless the

statutory notice is issued to the Board. He submits that the

- 5 -

Tribunal without considering this, rejected the application on

the ground that it can be considered at the time of trial.

6.

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs on the other hand

contended that the proceedings before the Tribunal has already

reached the stage of enquiry as the petitioner/2^nd defendant

has already filed its statement of objections. He further

contends that the Board has not challenged the order passed

by the Tribunal but it is the 2^nd defendant which has challenged

the said order. He therefore submits that the 2^nd defendant

has no locus standi to challenge the same.

7.

I have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the 2nd defendant/petitioner as well as the

plaintiffs.

8.

A perusal of the plaint filed before the Tribunal

indicates

that

the

plaintiffs

intended

to

challenge

the

Committee of Management constituted to manage the 2^nd

defendant/ petitioner herein which was approved by the 1^st

defen