R.R.Misra - (1.) THIS is a purported revision under the proviso to section 76 of the U. P. Muslim Waqfs Act 1960 filed by the opposite parties. It is admitted to the defendants applicants that the plaintiffs- opposite parties were office bearers of the Managing Committee appointed by Sunni Central Board, the defendant. The said Managing Committee of the plaintiffs has been removed and superseded by another Committed by an order dated 3-10-1986. The plaintiffs challenged the said order before the Tribunal by way of a reference under section 71 of the said U. P. Muslim Waqfs Act 1960. The said reference was numbered as Suit No. 1381 of 1986. The ground of challenge taken by the opposite parties-plaintiffs was that there was a party-bandi in the community by Loharan Mohalla Kotla, Meerut and as a result of the same some false complaints were made and the Waqf Board had wrongly removed the Committee of the plaintiffs. Admittedly, the said reference for adjudication is still pending before the Tribunal, i.e. Civil Judge, Meerut. Mean while during the pendency of the said reference before the Tribunal the Waqf Board took the management of the Waqf under the direct management on 7-1-1991 and appointed Sri Islamuddin as its Administrator. Be that it may be, but before the Tribunal the opposite parties moved an application for ad interim injunction against the said order of supersession dated 3-10-1986. THIS application was however, dismissed on 5-10-1990. There upon the opposite parties applied for the recall of the said order dated 5-10-1990, which has now been allowed by the Tribunal i.e. the Civil Judge, by its impugned order dated 26-3-1991. It is against this interim order that the present revision has been filed by the applicants-Board along with Sri Islamuddin, the so-called Administrator.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicants- Waqf Board. Admittedly the dispute referred to under section 71 of the U. P. Muslim Waqfs Act has not yet been decided by the Tribunal in the shape of an award. Therefore, since no award has been made so far and only an application for recall of the order dated 5-10-1990 has been allowed by the Tribunal and a date has been fixed in the impugned order itself for disposal of the reference which may culminate into an award, in my opinion, the said impugned order passed by the Tribunal on the application moved by the opposite parties being not a final award no revision lies from such a decision under the' proviso the section 76 of the U. P. Muslim Waqfs Act 1960, nor would a revision lies under section 115 of the CPC as the Tribunal is not a Court subordinate to High Court. In taking this view I am supported by a decision of a Bench of this Court in the case of Naqshe Ali v. U. P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, 1970 ALJ 815. In that case for taking the said view the Court had placed reliance on a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sunni Central Board of Waqf U. P. v. Sirajul Haq Khan, 1963 AIR Alld. 537, where in it was observed that the order passed by the Tribunal during the pendency of the reference before it, would not be an award and would not attract the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. In this view of the matter, to my mind, this revision is not maintainable. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed summarily as not maintainable. Revision dismissed.;