Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vinod Khimji Lodaya, filed a Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging an order dated 28-02-2011 passed by the Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad. The Tribunal had allowed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by respondents No. 3 to 16 (applicants) seeking impleadment in a suit (Wakf Suit No. 1/2009) filed by the petitioner against respondent No. 1 (Muljibhai Patel) and respondent No. 17 (Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs). The suit was for possession and permanent injunction in respect of a property allegedly belonging to the petitioner. The respondents No. 3 to 16 claimed to be tenants or occupiers of the suit property and sought to be joined as parties. The Tribunal allowed their impleadment. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the impleadment application and that the order was erroneous. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the revision was not maintainable in view of Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995, which bars the application of CPC to proceedings before the Wakf Tribunal except as provided in the Act. The High Court examined the scheme of the Wakf Act, particularly Section 83, which constitutes the Wakf Tribunal and provides that it shall not be bound by CPC but shall be guided by principles of natural justice. Sub-section (9) expressly states that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of matters which the Tribunal is required to determine. The court noted that while the Tribunal is deemed to be a civil court for purposes of Sections 195 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code and for contempt of court, it is not a civil court for purposes of attracting revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. The court relied on the principle that when a special statute creates a right or liability and provides a remedy, the remedy provided therein must be availed of. The court held that the revision was not maintainable and dismissed it, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the impleadment order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Maintainability of Revision - Section 115 CPC - Wakf Act, 1995 Section 83(9) - The court held that a revision under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable against an order of the Wakf Tribunal because Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 expressly bars the application of the Code of Civil Procedure to proceedings before the Tribunal, except as provided in the Act. The Tribunal is deemed a Civil Court only for limited purposes under Section 83(4) and (5), not for attracting revisional jurisdiction. (Paras 1-10) B) Wakf Act - Impleadment - Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - Section 83(9) Wakf Act, 1995 - The Tribunal allowed impleadment of persons claiming interest in the suit property. The revision against such order was held not maintainable due to the bar under Section 83(9). The court did not examine the merits of the impleadment order. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a civil revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is maintainable against an order passed by the Wakf Tribunal under the Wakf Act, 1995?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application as not maintainable, holding that Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 bars the application of CPC to proceedings before the Wakf Tribunal, and thus revision under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Revision under Section 115 CPC not maintainable against order of Wakf Tribunal
- Section 83(9) of Wakf Act
- 1995 bars revision
- Wakf Tribunal deemed Civil Court only for limited purposes
- Order 1 Rule 10 CPC impleadment
- Suit for possession and permanent injunction
- Wakf property dispute
