M.Katju, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 17-11-95, Annexure 5 to the petition.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts of the case are that respon dent Nos. 1 to 7 made a reference before the Civil Judge, Mirzapur under Section 71 of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1960 read with Section 63(3) thereof against the order dated 25-8-1987 passed by Farahat Ali the President of the U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs Lucknow superseding the committee of management of Waqf No. 42, Mirzapur. The said committee of management con sisted of respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and after it was superseded, the committee of manage ment consisting of respondent Nos. 10 to 28 was appointed. This reference case is registered as Rs. S. No. 309 of 1987. The petitioner was not a party in this reference and he made an application for impleadment, true copy of which is Annexure 2. The case of the petitioner was that he is Mujabir (Sajjadan Nasin) of Dargah and Mazar situated at Plot No. 1615. The petitioner had instituted a suit for injunction being Suit No. 322 of 1986, Israil Shah v. Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Board and others, about the property which was decreed on 4-4-1990 and the defendant was restrained from interfering with the possession of plaintiff. True copy of the judgment in the suit is Annexure 3.1 am informed that the said judgment has become final. Against the petitioner's application for impleadment in the reference the com mittee of management filed an objection and after hearing the parties the implead ment application was rejected on 17-11-95. Aggrieved this petition has been filed.
(3.) AFTER hearing counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order I am of the opinion that the petitioner should be given an opportunity of hearing in the hearing of the reference trial particularly when he claimed that the suit was decided in his favour and that he is Mujabir (Sajjadan Nasin) and therefore, he is Mutawalli under Section 3(5) of the U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs Act. I am not deciding whether the claim of the petitioner is cor rect or not but I am only or the opinion that the petitioner should be given a hearing in the reference. Hence I set aside the im pugned order dated 17- 11 -95 and direct that the reference should be decided within three months of production of certified copy of order after hearing the petitioner and other parties concerned. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.;