Judgment:
L.N. MITTAL, J. (Oral)
CM No.7422-CII of 2012
Allowed as prayed for.
CM No.7423-CII of 2012
The application is allowed and Annexures P-1 to P-7 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
Main Case
Judgment debtor (JD)-Gurdev Singh, aggrieved by order dated 18.02.2012 (Annexure P-6) passed by Wakf Tribunal, Jalandhar, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing the instant revision petition.
Suit filed by respondent-Punjab Wakf Board against petitioner for possession of the suit property was decreed ex parte by the Wakf Tribunal.
Respondent-decree holder (DH) filed execution petition for executing the said judgment and decree. Petitioner-JD filed objections in the execution proceedings alleging that the Wakf Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The objection petition was resisted by the DH. Learned Wakf Tribunal vide impugned order Annexure P-6 dismissed the objection petition filed by the JD, who has, therefore, filed this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that Wakf Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the suit and, therefore, decree sought to be executed is null and void and can be challenged even in execution or collateral proceedings.
Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Balvant N. Viswamitra and others versus Yadav Sadashiv Mule (D) through Lrs and others, 2004(4) RCR (Civil), 230 and Prem Singh and others versus Birbal and others, 2007(4) Civil Court cases 226 (SC).
Counsel for the petitioner also contended that even Punjab Wakf Board withdrew another suit against a third person from Wakf Tribunal on the ground of jurisdiction vide order Annexure P-2. It was also contended that Wakf Tribunal has not adjudicated the objection petition of the petitioner on merits but dismissed the same on the ground that petitioner's application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree has already been dismissed.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but find no merit therein. Judgment and decree sought to be executed have already attained finality. Petitioner had moved application for setting aside the said ex parte judgment and decree but the said application has also been dismissed vide order Annexure P-3. However, said order is said to be subject matter of challenge in another revision petition bearing CR No.1498 of 2012. The instant order shall have no bearing on the merits of the said revision petition.
Petitioner being JD cannot resist the decree which has attained finality. On the face of it, it cannot be said that Wakf Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the suit in which the decree was passed. Judgments in the cases of Balvant N. Viswamitra (supra) and Prem Singh and others (supra) are distinguishable on facts.
Withdrawal of some other suit by Punjab Wakf Board, which had been filed against some third person, from Wakf Tribunal vide order Annexure P-2, has no bearing whatsoever on the instant execution petition, wherein the suit of the Wakf Board already stands decreed.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition.
Impugned order of the Wakf Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.