Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 22964
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K. SUJANA, J
Md. Shakeel Khan – Appellant
Versus
Md. Ghouse – Respondent
CRP/1207/2024
A party seeking impleadment must demonstrate they are a necessary party to the suit; failure to consider relevant evidence can lead to prejudicial outcomes.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Order I Rule 10 - Revision petition against dismissal of implead application - Petitioner, as Mutawali, claimed necessary party status to suit involving Waqf property - Tribunal failed to consider relevant documents confirming petitioner's appointment - Court found that proceeding without petitioner would cause grave prejudice. (Paras 2, 6, 10)
(B) Waqf Act, 1988 - Section 42 - Appointment of Mutawali - Court noted that relevant documents confirming appointment were not appreciated by the Tribunal, leading to erroneous dismissal of the implead application. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is the Mutawali of Ashoorkhana Punch Bhai, confirmed by the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Tribunal in 2016, who sought to be impleaded in a suit for possession and injunction regarding Waqf property, which was dismissed by the Tribunal.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal erred in not considering the documents evidencing the petitioner’s appointment as Mutawali, and proceeding without him would cause grave prejudice.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is a necessary party to the suit and if the Tribunal erred in dismissing the implead application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner’s presence was necessary for a fair resolution of the suit, as his appointment as Mutawali was confirmed by official documents.
Result: Revision petition allowed, and the impugned order set aside.
ORDER:
The present revision petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 15.02.2021 passed in IA.No.884 of 2023 of 2022 in O.S.No.452 of 2016 on the file of Telangana State Waqf Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’).
The petitioner herein/proposed party filed the said IA., under Order I Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘ CPC ’) praying to implead him as defendant No.6 in the suit.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner is the Mutawali of Ashoorkhana Punch Bhai (Alawa), situated at Karwan Sahu, Hyderabad, as per his appointment notified in the official gazette. His appointment was challenged but ultimately the same was confirmed by the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Tribunal in the year 2016. However, respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.452 of 2016 before the Tribunal, seeking declaration, recovery of possession, and permanent injunction regarding the said Waqf property, with respondent No. 5 falsely described as the Mutawali. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal vide order dated 15.02.2021 dismissed the said IA. Aggrieved thereby, this revision petition is filed.
3. Heard Sri Sankalp Pissay, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Habeeb Jaffar Bin Hussain, learned standing counsel for Waqf Board, appearing for respondent No.6, and Smt Aarifa Imran Khan, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the impugned order is illegal and contrary to facts and law and contended that the Tribunal failed to consider crucial documents, including proceedings published in the official gazette, which confirms the appointment of petitioner as Mutawali of the Ashoorkhana Punch Bhai (Alawa) on 04.02.2005. He asserted that the receipts from the Telangana State Waqf Board, evidencing payment of Waqf funds, also identify the petitioner as the Mutawali of the suit schedule property and that the petitioner was a party to O.A.No.24 of 2005, which was filed by His Exalted Highness The VIII Nizam of Hyderabad, which was subsequently dismissed by the Tribunal on 11.04.2016, confirming the appointment of petitioner as Mutawali. He lamented that the Tribunal erred in recording that the petitioner failed to disclose as to why he intends to implead himself in the suit and averred that it was clearly stated in the affidavit that the plaintiff and defendant No.4 are in collusion to usurp the suit schedule property, due to which he is proper and necessary party to the suit. He incessantly contended that the Tribunal has wrongly held that the application of petitioner was filed at a belated stage, and reiterated that there is no limitation period for filing an application to implead oneself in a pending suit.
He avowed that the only relevant question for consideration of implead petition needs to be whether the petitioner is a proper and necessary party to the suit. Therefore, while advocating that there are infirmities in the impugned order, prayed this Court to allow the revision petition, setting aside the order under challenge.
5. Per contra, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.6, and learned counsel for respondent No.5, respectively, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and contended that the petitioner has failed to provide the date of the proceedings and details of his representation and appointment as Mutawalli of schedule property. They contended that despite respondent No.5 being a local person and was legally appointed Secretary of the H.E.H, a Waqf created by H.E.H The Nizam of Hyderabad, he had no knowledge of the petitioner discharging duties as Mutawalli of the Waqf institution. Further, that the motive of petitioner is to grab the property, and the implead petition was one such attempt to achieve the goal. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the revision petition.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the petitioner filed IA.No.884 of 2023 of 2022 in O.S
