Institutions directly affected by the relief are necessary and proper parties to the proceedings.

Madina Masjid filed Application No. 22/2026 before the Karnataka Waqf Tribunal challenging a Karnataka State Board of Auqaf resolution and a District Waqf Officer’s letter concerning three institutions: Masjid-e-Quba, Masjid-e-Arfath and Masjid-e-Mahmoodiya.

It sought, among other reliefs, to preserve its authority to manage those institutions and to restrain interference with that management.

The three institutions sought impleadment under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, contending that they were separate entities, independently managed, and not allied institutions of Madina Masjid.

The Tribunal rejected their applications, holding that they were neither necessary nor proper parties and should pursue an independent proceeding.

They appealed under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, as described in the judgment.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s order rejecting the three institutions’ applications for impleadment called for interference

2. Whether the three institutions were necessary or proper parties to Madina Masjid’s application before the Tribunal

The Court considered Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, which permits a court to add a party whose presence is necessary for effective and complete adjudication.

Relying on Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 8 SCC 384, it applied the principles that a necessary party is one in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed, while a proper party is one whose presence enables complete, effective and proper adjudication, even if no decree is sought for or against that person.

The appeals were brought under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, as identified in the judgment.

Madina Masjid’s requested reliefs concerned the three institutions’ status and management: it sought to challenge the Board’s resolution, prevent action to register the institutions separately, and restore its own authority over their affairs.

The proposed parties, in contrast, claimed independent legal status and management, and denied that they fell under Madina Masjid’s authority.

Because a decision on Madina Masjid’s claims could directly affect the institutions’ management and interests, their participation would assist the Tribunal in determining the central dispute.

The Court therefore held that they were proper and necessary parties, without deciding the merits of their competing claims.

It directed that the appellants be impleaded as respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in the Tribunal proceedings.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits and left all contentions open.