Mustaq Ali vs Mujiburahman and Others

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

This petition directed against the order dated January 20,1994 passed by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur by which application of Abudl Rashid, respondent No. 5 for being impleaded as a party in the suit filed by the petitioner has been allowed. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said Order.

The petitioner has filed a suit against respondent Nos. 1 to 4 alleging that he was a duly appointed principal of Juberia Tibbia Trust and respondent No. 1 Mujiburahman has been removed from that office before his appointment as Principal. He has sought injunction against respondent No. 1 from interfering with discharging duties as principal by the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 Mujiburahman has pleaded as his defence that the College in question which was founded by Jubria Tibbia Trust is a Waqf property which is now under the supervision of Rajasthan Board of Muslim Waqf and he has been duly appointed by the Education Committee appointed by the Waqf Board for the management of the College.

The trial court finding that the applicant has sufficient interest in the lis has allowed the application.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the College which is a Educational Institute could not have been validly made the subject-matter of Waqf and therefore Waqf Board could not have any right to interfere with the management of the College.

At the out set it may be stated that these are not the questions germane for determining the question to implead the Waqf Board as party to the suit. These are the questions which otherwise had arisen in the suit on the basis of pleas taken by the respondent No. 1 as his defence who has pleaded the Education Committee appointed by Waqf Board as source of his authority. Therefore, whether Mujiburahman has been validly entrusted with the office of Principal by the Education Committee appointed by Waqf Board. This question by necessary implication involves the question of authority of Waqf Board to deal with the college in question is already a subject-matter of issue betwen the parties. The Waqf Board in these circumstances cannot be said to be a person having no interest in the lis. Therefore, no error, illegality or irregularity could be found with the order of the trial court in granting application of the respondent No. 5 for being impleaded as a party. Such impleadment does not result in enhancement of the scope of the enquiry in the suit which is already existing.

The revision petition is rejected with no order as to costs.