[2025:RJ-JP:49121] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 197/2023 Rajasthan Board Of Muslim Wakf, L.K. 1, Lal Kothi, Jaipur Through Chief Executive Officer/secretary. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rakesh Manju S/o Sh. Girdhari Lal, R/o Golai Mod, Road No. 03, Jhunjhunu, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 2. Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Bhagwati Prasad Mahajan, R/o Bagad, At Present R/o P.m. 3/4, Stock Exchange Gaitunda Building, Majani Floor, B.s. Marg, Fort Mumbai-400023, 42 Sonarika Co-Operative Society 33A, Pedar Road, Mumbai- 400026 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Asgar Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anoop Pareek Mr. Pranav Pareek Mr. Devendra Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Order 03/12/2025 1. The present application has been filed challenging the order dated 14.08.2023, passed by the Rajasthan Wakf Tribunal, Jaipur, in Civil Suit No.32/2016, whereby the application of the plaintiff filed under Order 6 Rule 17 has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his first application under Order 6 Rule 17, permitting him to incorporate the pleadings with regard to the orders of S.D.O. dated 27.09.2004 and 11.02.2016 was allowed. However, inadvertently in respect of those orders, he could not seek any declaration in the [2025:RJ-JP:49121] (2 of 3) [CMAP-197/2023] prayer clause and therefore, the subsequent application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 for incorporating the prayer for declaration of those two orders to be void ab initio. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that the pleadings will have no value, if the prayer is not permitted to be amended and therefore, prayed that the order dated 14.08.2023 may kindly be quashed and set aside and his application under Order 6 Rule 17 may be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner cannot make a prayer in respect of the orders passed by the S.D.O. before the Wakf Tribunal, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make any declaration in respect of the orders passed by the S.D.O., the application under Order 6 Rule 17 has rightly been rejected. 5. Heard both the parties. 6. This Court finds that the pleadings in respect to orders passed by the SDO were permitted to be incorporated in the plaint, vide order dated 30.09.2022 and in pursuance of that, Para-4A has been incorporated, wherein in respect of both orders of S.D.O., the plaintiff has pleaded that the orders are void ab initio. 6. Once, the orders passed by the SDO have been pleaded to be void ab initio, this Court finds that there is no requirement for any such declaration. It will be for the Wakf Tribunal to decide whether the orders passed by S.D.O. are void ab initio, in case it comes to the conclusion that the property in dispute is a wakf property. [2025:RJ-JP:49121] (3 of 3) [CMAP-197/2023] 7. Therefore, this Court finds no error has been committed by the tribunal, so as to entertain the present miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the civil miscellaneous application stands dismissed. 9. Record be sent immediately to the learned Tribunal. 10. All pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J DIVYA /17