IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 CRP.No. 587 of 2008 ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/04/2007 IN IA 575/2006 IN OS.57/2005 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- MASJIDUNOOR PARIPALANA SANGAM, REP. BY SECRETARY, K.T.MOHAMMEDALI, S/O.MOHAMMED SALI, 54 YEARS, NEAR KANNUR BUS STAND, KANNUR-1. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. K.M.IBRAHIM, S/O.ABDUL RAHIM, 59 YEARS, JAFAR MANZIL MUZHATHADAM, KANNUR-2 (PRESIDENT DAKHANI JUMA-ATH, KANNUR ZILLA UNIT JOINT SECRETARY, MISKEEN PALLI, PARIPALANA SANGAM). 2. K.M.JAFAR, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN 32 YEARS, BUSINESS, MUZHATHADAM, KANNUR-2. 3. SHAIKH MUNABHARJAN, S/O.YOOSAF, 32 YEARS, BUSINESS, MAKKANI COMPOUND SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR-2. 4. SYED NOORUDHEEN, S/O.SAID MUYINUDHEEN, MAHABOOB MANZIL, SOUTH BAZAR, KAKKAT ROAD, KANNUR-2. (SECRETARY, MISKEEN PALLI PARIPALANA SANGAM, KANNUR-2). CRP. NO.587/08 -2- 5. MISKEEN PALLI PARIPALANA SANGAM,REP. BY P RESIDENT, SHAIKH ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O.SKAIKH MUHAMMEDALI, 76 YEARS, SABEENA MANZIL SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR-2. 6. KERALA WAKF BOARD, REP. BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.M.M.SAIDU MUHAMMED,SC,WAKF BOARD FOR R6 SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN FOR R1 SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN FOR R3,4 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ C. R. P. No.587 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of June, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is order passed by the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode in I.A.575/06 which was an application for restoration of O.S.57/05 filed by the respondents. The I.A was filed for restoring the suit which was dismissed by the learned Tribunal on 28/07/06. The learned Wakf Tribunal after hearing both sides allowed I.A.575/06 by imposing a cost of Rs.500/- to be deposited within a time frame. The cost was not paid or deposited within the time frame set by this Court. As a result of this, the I.A. and C. R. P. No.587 of 2008 -2- consequently, the suit also became dismissed finally. Long thereafter, the respondents filed I.A.651/07 seeking restoration of I.A.575/06. That I.A. was not diligently prosecuted by the respondents with the result that that I.A. came to be dismissed for default. Even thereafter nothing was done by the respondents. But later, they filed I.A.1082/07 and I.A.1469/07, one for restoring the I.A.651/07 and the other for condoning the delay caused in the matter. The learned Tribunal allowed both these applications unconditionally. As result of this I.A.575/06 stood restored. Under the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has allowed I.A.575/06 noticing that though not under the impugned order, the cost of Rs.500/- C. R. P. No.587 of 2008 -3- originally ordered stood deposited. 2. In this revision various grounds are raised challenging the impugned order and Sri.V.Ramkumar Nambiar, the learned counsel for the petitioner addressed arguments on the basis of those grounds. Mr.Nambiar submitted that I.A.1082/07 and I.A.1469/07 were not maintainable since the dismissal of I.A.575/06 in the first instance was on the reason that cost was not paid on time. According to him, the court below should not have allowed the I.A.s since they were not maintainable. But answering a query put by us, Mr.Nambiar submitted that the petitioner/ Wakf is yet to challenge the order in I.A.1082/07 and I.A.1469/07. We are of the view that it is too C. R. P. No.587 of 2008 -4- late for the revision petitioner to impugn the order today in I.A.1082/07 and I.A.1469/07. The only question to be considered by us is as to whether the impugned order is vitiated by any jurisdictional or other error. We feel that the court below was not justified in allowing I.A.575/06 in the casual manner in which the same is done. The total lack of diligence on the side of the respondent in prosecuting the proceedings before the court should have been taken serious note of by the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal should have imposed stringent conditions for allowing I.A.575/06. Hence, we are of the view that the impugned order can be sustained only by putting the respondents to terms. C. R. P. No.587 of 2008 -5- 3. The result of the CRP accordingly will be as follows:- The impugned order will stand modified by incorporating a condition that the respondents pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- to the revision petitioner either directly or through their counsel in this Court within ten days from today and produce receipt before the Wakf Tribunal. If cost as ordered above is also not paid, the impugned order will stand set aside and I.A.575/06 will stand dismissed. If Wakf Tribunal notices receipt against payment of cost as ordered above, the Tribunal will post the suit for trial and dispose of the suit in accordance with law at the earliest giving priority to the suit which is filed in the year C. R. P. No.587 of 2008 -6- 2005. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-