This judgment will dispose of C.R. Nos. 1660/83 and 1661/83 as common questions of law and facts are involved.
2. The dispute in these two civil revisions, is about a mosque, a tomb and the property attached thereto comprising seven shops, a courtyard, two rooms and staircase, situate in Gujrat City. The petitioner claims to be a duly registered Society and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is managing the mosque since long. In the suits filed by the petitioners it was alleged that the respondents have no concern either with the mosque or the mausoleum as also the property described above and it was the petitioner which was managing the mosque and its members were saying prayers in it. The suits were contested by the respondents by filing written statements in which various pleas were taken. It was, inter alia, pleaded that the mosque as also mausoleum and the other property belong to the respondents with which the petitioner has no concern. After trial of the suits, the trial Court dismissed them on 22-7-1980 and 9-2-1981 respectively. The appeal filed by the petitioner met with failure at the hands of the Additional District Judge, Gujrat on 30th of June, 1983. The two judgments and decrees of the Courts below have been assailed by the petitioner in the present two revision petitions.
3. As regards the seven shops and the property attached to the mosque, it is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the same were at one time declared as Waqf and taken over by the Auqaf Department but that notification has since bee rescinded and the petitioner do not have any claim over this property. The learned counsel for the respondents on his part has conceded the right of the petitioner and for that matter every Muslim to perform prayers in the mosque and it has been stated that no hindrance has been caused or shall be caused by the respondents in this behalf.
4. The dispute is now confined to the question of management and administration of the mosque and the tomb. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner-Society was formed for the purposes of and is in the management and control of the mosque.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has disputed the right of -the petitioner to do so. The petitioner has been non-suited on the ground of its locus standi by the Courts below.
There is no evidence on the record to show that the petitioner-Society is registered under any law for the time being in force. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall after complying with all the legal formalities file a fresh suit and his only apprehension is that the decisions in these proceedings may not operate as a bar. This apprehension is not well-founded. Since the petitioner was non-suited on the basis of locus standi it will be open for it to file a fresh suit, after obtaining the requisite permission from the Advocate- General under section 92 of the C.P.C. If the petitioner is so advised to do, and neither the judgment of this Court nor of the Courts below, will operate as a bar in the way of the petitioner.
With these observations the revision petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.