SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
SUBHANIYA ANJUMAN ISLAMIA – Appellant
Versus
THE C.G. STATE WAQF BORAD and ORS – Respondent
CR 41/2012



Advocates:
['VIPIN SINGH', '', 'MEERA ANSARI', 'A S ANSARI', 'RESHAM LAL BAJPAYEE', 'BADRUDDIN KHAN', 'DEVESH GHANSHYAM PRASAD KELA', 'ANKUSH MISHRA', 'NARENDRA TIRKEY']

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Civil Revision No.41 of 2012

Subhaniya Anjuman Islamia, Bilaspur (A Society Registered

Under the Societies Registration Act, 1860) Acting through

Secretary, Abdul Wadood Faridi, S/o Late Shri Abdul Rauf

Faridi, R/o Main Road Koni, Tahsil & District-Bilaspur (CG)

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. The Chhattisgarh State Waqf Board, Acting Through its

Chief Executive Officer, Sector 3, House No.C-10

Devendra Nagar, Raipur (CG)

2. Ferid Ahamad Qureshi S/o Wakil Ahamad Qureshi, aged

about 50 years, Employee of Nagar Palika Nigam, R/o

Nigam Colony, Maharana Pratap Square, Bilaspur (CG)

3. Collector, Bilaspur (CG)

4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Bilaspur (CG)

---- Respondents

For Petitioner

:

Mr. K.A.Ansari, Senior Advocate

with Mr.M.S.K.Khokhar, Advocate

For Resp.No.1

:

Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate

For Res.No.2

:

None present

For Res.No.3 &4 :

Mr.Sameer Behar, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

CAV ORDER

24/06/2016

1)

Invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section

83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995 (hereinafter called as “the

Waqf Act”), the petitioner/plaintiff herein has filed the

instant revision questioning the legality, validity and

correctness of the order dated 25.8.2011 passed by the

Chhattisgarh State Waqf Tribunal, Raipur, by which the

plaintiff's application filed under Section 94/151 of the

2

CPC read with Order 39 Rule 1 of the CPC has been partly

rejected.

2)

The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of title and

permanent injunction under Section 83 of the Waqf Act seeking

relief that decree for declaration be granted as the order dated

14.6.2011 passed by respondent/defendant No.1 is illegal, without

jurisdiction and void. Further relief was claimed that defendants

No.1 and 2 be restrained from interfering with functioning of the

petitioner/plaintiff herein.

3)

During pendency of this civil suit, order dated 29.7.2011 was

passed under Section 71(3) of the Waqf Act by respondent

No.1/defendant No.1 by restraining the petitioner/plaintiff society

from operating two bank accounts.

4)

Application under Section 94/151 read with Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of

the CPC was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff that temporary

injunction in the mandatory form be granted to take back the order

dated 29.7.2011. The aforesaid application was partly allowed by

learned Waqf Tribunal and the petitioner society has been

permitted to withdraw a sum of 10,000/- per month for day-to-

day expenses by the impugned order.

5)

Against which, the present civil revision has been preferred.

6)

Mr.K.A.Ansari, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.M.A.K. Khokhar,

learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the aforesaid

3

order passed by learned Waqf Tribunal is contrary to law. The

Waqf Tribunal has committed jurisdictional error in rejecting the

application in part.

7)

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would

defend the order and submit that order dated 29.7.2011 has not

been assailed in the suit preferred before the Waqf Tribunal and

therefore, no temporary injunction can be granted, as such, the

revision deserves to be dismissed.

8)

A bare perusal of the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff would

show that the petitioner/plaintiff has neither claimed any relief of

declaration that memo dated 29.7.2011 is null and void nor

claimed relief of permanent injunction against the memo dated

29.07.2011 restraining the petitioner/plaintiff from operating the

account and only temporary injunction in mandatory form has

been sought by way of interim relief.

9)

In the matter of Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden

and others

1 , Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid

down the law regarding grant of temporary injunction in mandatory

form as under:-

“16. The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunction

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top