' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5-2-1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of Sindh High Court in Civil Revision Application No,225 of 1996, whereby the judgment and decree dated 1-9-1996 passed by learned VIIIth Additional District Judge, Karachi East in Civil Appeal No,115 of 1994 were reversed/set aside and judgment and decree dated 16-4-1999 passed by Hnd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, East, in Suit No,2883 of 1982 were restored/upheld, hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that private respondents/plaintiffs filed Suit No,2883 of 1982 for declaration that the foundation of Masjid-e-Tayyaba was laid by Moulana Ehteshamul Haque Thanvi and that the said Masjid was constructed initially from funds made available by Khan Bahadur Haji Wajihuddin and Darse Qur'an was imparted for at least 25 years by late Maulana Muhammad Hussain Palva and Imams who led Salats in the said Masjid professed Hanafi Sunni (Deobandi) Maslaq and that the said Masjid was of Hanafi Sunni Deobandi Maslaq and further declaration that no addition can be made before or after the established words of Azan and further that the alleged Darood-o-Salam which is sung in a chorus in full throated voice after Juma Salat in any Masjid in the manner and particularly in the standing posture as a religious ritual was never performed during the days of Rasoolullah Sallallaho Alahe Wassalam, Sahaba-Karam R.A., Tabaeen or Taba Tabaeen or any other Imam or Wali during the last twelve and a half centuries throughout the world and the insistence on the performance of this ritual in a specific manner or form was a bidet and was against the sanctity of Masjid and was against the teachings of Qur'an and Sunnah and to profess a faith that Rasoolullah Sallallaho Alahe Wassalam was "Hazir and Nazir" was "Shirk Fis Sifal" of Allah, the Creator and further order for permanent injunction restraining the respondent No,1/defendant No,1 or any other person or persons professing Brailvi Maslaq from leading Salat in said Masjid Tayyaba and restraining other petitioners/defendants from jointly or severely in any manner imposing appointing or assisting in such appointment or any person, professing Brailvi Maslaq Imam or Moazzin in the said Masjid and removing terminating the services of creating hindrances in the performance of official duties or in any manner obstructing the present Imam Hafiz Qari Maulana Ziauddin, from leading Salats and Taraveelis, or from delivering Khutba in the said Masjid. The petitioners filed written statement wherein they denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that the Masjid was of Brailvi Maslaq from the very beginning and it was taken over by the Auqaf Department and the said department was never authorised to make any change. After framing issues, the trial Court recorded evidence of the parties and thereafter after hearing the learned counsel for the parties decreed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs, holding that in view of the findings on Issues Nos.2 to 7, it proved that the Masjid belonged to Deobandi Maslaq, therefore, Administrator Auqaf was directed to regulate the practices and religious performances according to Sunni (Deobandi) Maslaq and further that in view of findings on the above Issues and issue No,8, respondents 1 to 5 were held to be entitled to the reliefs of declaration and injunction as per their prayers (a) and (d). On appeal, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court were set aside and it was held that Maslak of Masjide Tayyaba was not Deobandi but Brailvi. Respondents 1 to 5 preferred the revision application before the High Court wherein the learned single Judge has observed in the concluding paragraph as under:- ' "The upshot of the above discussion is that keeping in view the relevant rules (supra) and the evidence led by the parties I have come to the conclusion that the learned appellate Court seriously erred in law by misappreciating the evidence led by the parties, particularly that of applicants/plaintiffs and also gave conflicting opinion regarding the maintainability of the suit under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. It is established from the evidence that Deobandi Maslak was being practised by the dedicator and Namazis from the time of establishment of Masjid- eTayyaba till its management was taken over by the Auqaf Department. Therefore, on the basis of dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Gopal and others v. Maran Bepari and others PLD 1969 SC 617 this revision is allowed. The judgment of the learned appellate Court is reversed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court are upheld with costs."
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and proceedings of the case. We have been taken through the evidence by the learned counsel for the parties. We find that the High Court was right in holding that the appellate Court has misread the evidence and also did not care to go through the reasonings of the trial Court. The learned single Judge has rightly concurred with the findings of fact arrived at by the trial Court. The learned single Judge has observed:-- ' "Therefore, undoubtedly, the Muslims following any particular faith (Maslak) can establish mosques but it is held that such institutions should not be named after any particular Maslak. In order to maintain harmony, peace and brotherhood it is essential that the respect and sanctity should be accorded to the faith (Maslak) whose followers constructed the mosque irrespective of the fact whether the management and control of such a mosque is in the hands of the Mosque Committee or the Auqaf Department. In the instant case it is established through evidence that Masjid-e-Tayyaba was constructed by persons professing Deobandi Maslak and now its management and control was with the Provincial Auqaf Department. As was rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant under Rule 4 of Waqf Rules, 1960 scheme for the management of Waqf property is to be prepared by the Manager for settlement by the Chief Administrator for the administration of the Waqf property in his charge and the said scheme is to be designed to give effect to such wishes of the person dedicating, as can be ascertained and to which effect can reasonably be given. It is further provided in Rule 4(2) of the said Rules that where the Waqf property is a mosque, the scheme shill ensure that the religious services and other functions performed therein are continued. In other words under the above-mentioned rules the wishes of the dedicator must be given effect to and the Auqaf Department has to administer the property in accordance with the rules framed under section 21 of the Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979. Thus, wishes of the dedicator cannot be disregarded."
4. We find that there is no scope for our interference with the judgment of the learned single Judge of the High Court who has affirmed the findings of fact arrived at by the trial Court. However, we may add that a mosque is always dedicated to Almighty Allah, which is meant for the use of all the Muslims to offer prayers therein without any distinction of sect, and no Muslim can prohibit another Muslim from offering prayers in the Mosque in accordance with the Qur'an and Sunnah.
5. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we find no merit in this petition, consequently leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.