cra90.11 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 90 OF 2011 1 Mohd. Amjadoddin s/o Inyaturrahman Khatib, Age 68 years, Occ. Nil (Imamat) 2 Mohd. Yousufoddin s/o Inyaturrahman Khatib, Age 63 years, Occ. Nil (Imamat) 3 Mohd. Irshadoddin s/o Mohd. Mazharoddin Khatib, Age 33 years, Occ. Nil (Imamat) All R/o. Palam, Tq. Palam, District Parbhani ...Petitioners Versus 1 Mohd. Abdul Khaleque s/o Mohd. Abdul Wahab Age 68 years, Occ. Trade, R/o. Chandulal Baradari, Hyderabad (A.P.) 2 Mohd. Abdul Mukhtadir s/o Mohd. Abdul Wahab Age 63 years, Occ. Trade, R/o. Chandulal Baradari, Hyderabad (A.P.) 3 Mohd. Fazal Hakh Shayekh s/o Mohd. Abdul Wahab Age 58 years, Occ. Private service, R/o. Chandulal Baradari, Hyderabad (A.P.) 4 Shaheda Begum d/o Mohd. Abdul Wahab Age 48 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Chandulal Baradari, Hyderabad (A.P.) cra90.11 -2- 5 Shahnaz Tahseen d/o Mohd. Abdul Wahab Age 43 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Chandulal Baradari, Hyderabad (A.P.) (Respondent Nos.1 to 5 through their G.P.A. Sher Khan s/o Yousuf Khan Pathan Age 60 years, Occ. Agri. R/o. Palam, Tq. Palm, district Parbhani) 6 Chief Executive Officer, Panchakki Aurangabad ...Respondents ..... Mr. G. R. Syed, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.A.G. Qureshi, advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 Mr. Y.B. Pathan, advocate for respondent No.6 ..... CORAM: R.M. BORDE, J. DATED: 11TH APRIL, 2011 JUDGMENT :- 1 Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 2 Shri Qureshi, counsel appearing of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 undertakes to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the said respondents within a couple of days. 3 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, matter is taken up of final disposal at the stage of admission itself. cra90.11 -3- 4 The respondents original plaintiffs instituted Suit No. 75 of 2008 before the Wakf Tribunal seeking declaration and perpetual injunction against the petitioners and the Wakf Board. It is informed that recording of evidence of plaintiffs’ side is over. The defendants did not remain present and did not cross examine the witnesses produced by the plaintiffs. The defendants also did not lead evidence from their side. On 17.3.2011, an application was presented by the defendants seeking permission to appoint another counsel. The defendants also sought adjournment on that count and also requested the Court to permit the defendants to cross examine the witnesses of the plaintiffs by setting aside the no cross order passed by the Court. 5 The application tendered by the defendants at Exh.95 requesting to set aside ‘no cross’ order passed earlier as well as the application seeking adjournment in the matter have been turned down by the trial Court by order dated 5.4.2011. The trial court has recorded in the order that the defendants know very well what is the stage of the suit and it was the duty of the defendants to remain present before the court. It is also observed by the court that the defendants are deliberately adopting dilatory tactics. The Wakf Tribunal was directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously, however, because of non co- operation of the defendants, the suit could not be disposed of, as directed. cra90.11 -4- 6 Having considered all relevant circumstances, I deem it appropriate to grant yet another opportunity to the defendants so as to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. However, the defendants shall be put to term of payment of costs so as to compensate the plaintiffs. Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 original plaintiffs agrees to keep the witnesses present on 2.5.2011 so as to enable the defendants to record their cross examination. The plaintiffs shall keep those witnesses present so as to enable the defendants to record cross examination who have been already examined by the plaintiffs. The order passed by trial court refusing permission to cross examine plaintiff’s witnesses stands set aside. The defendants-petitioners herein also agree that on the given date i.e. on 2.5.2011 itself, they shall place on record the affidavit of the witnesses in the form of examination-in-chief. The plaintiffs shall proceed to cross examine the witnesses produced on behalf of the defendants. The Wakf Tribunal shall take up the matter for day to day basis since 2.5.2011 and shall proceed to complete recording of evidence in the matter. The order dated 5.4.2011 passed by the Wakf Tribunal refusing to extend further opportunity to defendants to cross examine plaintiffs’ witnesses and production of evidence on their behalf stands set aside. 6 The defendants-petitioners herein shall pay costs of this Civil cra90.11 -5- Revision Application quantified at Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to respondent Nos. 1 to 5 original plaintiffs. The defendants shall also pay expenses for keeping the witnesses of plaintiffs present for facilitating the cross examination, quantified at Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) payable to plaintiffs. The total amount of Rs. 8000/- (Rupees 5000/- + 3000/-) may be paid to the counsel for the plaintiffs before the prescribed date i.e. on or before 2.5.2011, who may pass receipt in favour of defendants acknowledging receipt of amount on behalf of plaintiffs. It is made clear that in the event of failure to pay the amounts, as directed above, the order passed in this Civil Revision Application shall be deemed to have been recalled without further reference to Court. 7 Civil Revision Application is accordingly allowed and disposed of. Rule made absolute in the above terms. *****