Bombay High Court
Syed Mushtaq Ahmed Khatib Syed ... vs The Maharashtra State Board Of ... on 18 February, 2021
Bench: R. G. Avachat
CRA-21-2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.21 OF 2020
Syed Mushtaq Ahmed Khatib s/o.
Syed Ashfaq Ahmed Khatib,
Age : 32 years,
Occ. Mutawalli and Agriculture,
r/o. Mahboobpura, Udgir,
Dist.Latur ..Applicant
Vs.
The Maharashtra State Board of
Waqfs, Panchakki, Aurangabad,
through Chief Executive Officer,
Aurangabad
and others ..Respondents
----
Mr.R.S.Deshmukh, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr.S.A.P.Quadri,
Advocate for applicant
Mr.N.E.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no.1 (absent)
Mr.M.B.W.Khan, Advocate for respondent nos.3 to 5
----
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2021
ORDER :-
Heard
2. The challenge in this Civil Revision Application is to
the order dated 21.01.2020 passed by Maharashtra Waqf
2 CRA-21-2020
Tribunal, Aurangabad, on application (below Exhibit-319)
in Waqf Suit No.34 of 2016. By the impugned order, the
application moved by the revisional applicant (plaintiff) for
production of documents came to be rejected.
3. Mr.Deshmukh, learned senior counsel for the
applicant, would submit that the documents sought to be
produced were very much relevant for deciding the suit.
The applicant/plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and
injunction. The applicant/plaintiff sought relief of
declaration as Khatib, Imam, Mutawalli of Jama Masjid,
Idgah, Udgir and Inamdar of lands bearing survey nos.8,
9, 84, 85 and 99 Gat Nos.11, 12, 331, 332 and 347. The
respondents/defendants, in their affidavit of examination-
-in-chief, made a reference to the waqf suit nos.86 of
2016, 118 of 2016 and 174 of 2016 and stated that
Inamdars filed suit before Waqf Tribunal, Aurangabad.
Learned senior counsel would further submit that the
Inampatrak is a public document to show Inam land and
3 CRA-21-2020
names of persons rendering services to the Institution. A
copy of Writ Petition No.8177 of 2017 was also sought to
be produced along with the withdrawal purshis of the uncle
of the applicant/plaintiff. According to learned senior
counsel, the trial Court rejected the application simply on
the ground of the direction given by the High Court to
dispose of the suit within a time frame.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants
would, on the other hand, submit that hearing of the suit
has been concluded. The matter is reserved for judgment.
The documents sought to be produced are not relevant.
Some of the documents sought to be produced pertain to
the persons who are not parties to the suit. The
documents, production of which was sought for, are not
public documents. In the pleadings, relevancy of these
documents has not been averred. Learned counsel relied
on the Order VI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He
would further submit that the plaint, written statement,
4 CRA-21-2020
etc., are not public documents. Learned counsel supported
the impugned order.
5. True, the trial Court has been directed to decide
the suit within a time fame. Hearing of the suit has been
concluded. The matter is said to have been reserved for
judgment. The applicant/plaintiff has filed the suit for
declaration as Khatib, Imam, Mutawalli of Jama Masjid,
Idgah, Udgir and Inamdar of lands bearing survey nos.8,
9, 84, 85 and 99 Gat Nos.11, 12, 331, 332 and 347. The
applicant/plaintiff claims to be successor of the original
Inamdar. True, Inampatrak sought to be produced on
record, does not contain the names of either original
Inamdar or his successor. It, however, contains survey
numbers of the lands, with an endorsement that Indamdar
is no more. His heirs are rendering services at Jama
Masjid and Idgah at Udgir. From the claim in the suit, it is
crystal clear that these documents are relevant and
required to be before the trial Court.
5 CRA-21-2020
6. The second document sought to be produced
pertain to a withdrawal purshis preferred in Waqf suit
No.174 of 2016.
7. An affidavit is filed by Syed Ishtiyaque Ahmad
Khatib in support of the withdrawal purshis. It appears
that the said suit pertains to the very lands, which are the
subject matter of the present suit. The record indicates
that the respondents themselves had moved an application
seeking the witness summons for production of Record and
Proceedings of waqf suit no.174 of 2016. The same itself
suggest that these documents are relevant and required to
be before the trial Court.
8. The next document sought to be produced is a
copy of Writ Petition No.8177 of 2017 and the order of this
Court thereon. From reading paragraph 2 of said Writ
Petition it would again be clear that it pertained to the
subject matter of the present suit. After production of
6 CRA-21-2020
these documents, the question of the manner in which
those are required to be proved, would be relevant.
9. The impugned order indicates that the trial Court
has mainly rejected the application on the ground of the
suit being time bound. It is also observed that there is no
reference to the documents in the pleadings. The
documents which are sought to be produced are in the
nature of public records kept of private documents. It is
reiterated that all these documents pertain to the subject
matter of the suit. True, there is delay in seeking
production of these documents but the same should not be
a cause of miscarriage of justice on account of not
granting an opportunity to produce the same. In the
Revision Application, it has been averred that respondent
(defendant no.3), in his examination-in-chief, referred to
the aforesaid three waqf suits.
7 CRA-21-2020
10. Since the documents sought to be produced are
found to be relevant, the trial Court ought to have allowed
its production. It could have saddled the applicant/plaintiff
with costs.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, Revision Application
is allowed in terms of prayer clause (c). The application
below Exhibit-319 is allowed to the extent of production of
those documents.
[R.G. AVACHAT, J.]
KBP
