Sunni Central Board of Waqf Lucknow Vs. Pooran Chand & anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1934 of 1984
Petitioner: Sunni Central Board of Waqf Lucknow
Respondent: Pooran Chand & anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1934 of 1984
Judges: RANGANATHA MISRA, M.M.PUNCHHI, K.RAMASWAMY
Date of Judgment: Mar 23, 1990
Appearances:
Mr.Shankar Ghosh, Mr. R.K.Jain, Senior Advocats. Mr. R.B.Mehrotra, Ms. Abha Sharma, Ms. Sangita Tripathi Mandal,Mr.R.P.Singh, Mr.Harish N.Salve, Mr.D.K.Garg, Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, C.P. Pandey, Mr.S.K.Sabharwal, Mr. M.P.Sarawala, Mr. R.S.Sodhi, Mr. D.D.Gupta, Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed, Mr. K.R.R.Pillai, Mr. M.A., Firoz, Mr. R.D. Upadhyay, Mr. U.S.Prasad & Mr. C.M.Nayar, Advocates with them for the appearing parties.
Head Note:
U.P. MUSLIM WAQFS ACT, 1960:
Section 66 – Suit under section 66 without prior notice- Whether maintainable – Question if raised to be disposed of on merits by the High Court.
JUDGEMENT:
RANGANATH MISRA,J:
This appeal is by special leave and challenge is to the order dated 1.10.1981, on a miscellaneous application in a pending second appeal before the High Court. The High Court in the pending second appeal was asked to decide whether a suit instituted without prior notice under s. 66 of the U.P.Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960, was maintainable. That, in fact, was the question which required adjudication in the second appeal. The High Court negatived the stand. We are of the view that the impugned order need not be interfered with but in case in the second appeal this question is raised it shall be disposed of on its won merits after hearing parties in case that appeal may still be pending disposal. We do not express any opinion one way or the other.
The appeal is, therefore, disposed of with this observation. No costs.
This appeal is by special leave and challenge is to the order dated 1.10.1981, on a miscellaneous application in a pending second appeal before the High Court. The High Court in the pending second appeal was asked to decide whether a suit instituted without prior notice under s. 66 of the U.P.Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960, was maintainable. That, in fact, was the question which required adjudication in the second appeal. The High Court negatived the stand. We are of the view that the impugned order need not be interfered with but in case in the second appeal this question is raised it shall be disposed of on its won merits after hearing parties in case that appeal may still be pending disposal. We do not express any opinion one way or the other.
The appeal is, therefore, disposed of with this observation. No costs.
