HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CIVIL REVISION No. - 48 of 2023 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. Heard Sri Lokendra Kumar Gupta learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Mohammad Saeed for respondent no.1 and Sri Farhan Habib learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Under challenge is the order dated 22.05.2023 passed by the Waqf Tribunal whereby an application moved by the revisionists challenging the maintainability of the proceedings initiated by the respondent no.1 before the Waqf Tribunal, on the ground that compliance of Section 89 of the Waqf Act, 1995 had not been made which rendered the suit bad, was dismissed which is now under challenge. The counsel for the revisionists submits that they are the private respondents in the suit instituted by the respondent no.1 but since Board is also a party to the said suit and it is admitted that respondent no.1 did not issue notice or brought any notice on record in terms of Section 89 of the Act, hence, the suit was not maintainable and for the aforesaid reasons, the suit could not proceed and this aspect has not been considered by the Waqf Tribunal, hence, the impugned order is bad. Learned counsel for the revisionists in support of his submissions has relied upon the decision of this Court in Committee of Management Jami Masjid Sambhal Ahmed Marg Kot Sambhal vs Hari Shankar Jain and 12 others; 2025 : AHC : 82931. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Lokendra Kumar Gupta, Mirza Humayun Qadar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C., Farhan Habib, Mohammad Saeed Mohammad Arif And 2 Others .....Revisionist(s) Waqf Mohammad Wazir Ahmad (Waqf No. 7 Exempted), Through Mutawalli Ahmad Nazir Alvi, And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Having considered the aforesaid submissions, a specific query was put to the counsel for the revisionists as to whether the Board had raised such an objection emanating from Section 89 of the Act, to which, it has been answered that no such challenge was raised by the Board. From a perusal of the Section 89 of the Waqf Act, 1995, it would reveal that the said provision is for the benefit of the Waqf Board. Admittedly, the Waqf Board has not raised any such objection. In absence thereof, it does not give any right to the present revisionists who is a private respondent in the suit to raise such an objection. Accordingly, this Court does not find that there is any merit in the contention advanced by the counsel for the revisionists. This Court upon considering the decision of this Court in Committee of Management Jami Masjid Sambhal Ahmed Marg Kot Sambhal (supra) finds that it does not come to the aid of the revisionists, in such circumstances in para-56 of the said report, the Court has held as under:- "56. The entire objection is from defendant no. 6/revisionist on whom Section 80 is not applicable. The object of Section 80 is to provide protection to the Government and its officials against ex-parte orders. If in a particular case that person does not require protection, he can lawfully waive his right. This was held in case of Dhirendra Nath Goari, Subal Chandra Nath Saha v. Sudhir Chandra Ghosh, AIR 1964 SC 1300." From the aforesaid position, it would be clear that the aforesaid decision related to the compliance of Section 89 CPC wherein it was held that the said section is for the aid of the Government and its officials. Similarly, in the case at hand, Section 89 of the Waqf Act, 1995 is for the benefit of the Waqf Board and if at all any objection of this nature could be raised, it would have been the Waqf Board and not the private litigant, hence the aforesaid decision does not come to the aid of revisionists. In view of the position settled in law, the revision is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. November 15, 2025 Harshita CLRE No. 48 of 2023 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench