IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932 CRP.No. 24 of 2008() -------------------- OS.41/2004 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): SUPPL. 3RD DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------ K.SHIBISH, AGED 37, S/O.K.RAVINDRAN, SAJEEVA GRIHAM, THONDAYAD, CHEVARAMBALAM P.O., NELLIKODE AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SRINATH GIRISH SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT NO.1 & SUPPL.D2: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. VAYALIL MALIYEKKAL JAMEELA, D/O.PNM BAPPAN KOYA, AGED 56, MUTHAVALLY AND MANAGER OF VAYALIL MALIYEKKAL THARWAD WAKF, REP. BY HER REGD. POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ALLISSAN MARAKKARAKATHU AMMED KOYA, AGED 63, NAGARAM AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. KADAPPA MANNIL DINESH BABU, S/O.CHANDUKUTTY, AGED 47, BUSINESS AT 7/696 SANKARAN BAKERY, S.M.STREET, NAGARAM AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. 3. K.BHARATHAN, AGED 66, S/O.K.PARUKKUTTY, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT JANAKI NILAYAM, PIPELINE ROAD, MARIKKUNU P.O., CALICUT, CHEVAYOOR AMSOM AND DESOM. ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ FOR R1 SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNON FOR R2 SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR FOR R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2010, ALONG WITH CRP NO. 97 OF 2008 & CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ C.R.P.Nos.24, 97,121 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in these civil revision petitions is the common eviction decree passed by the Wakf Tribunal in the suit instituted by the respondents against the revision petitioners. We notice the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf(2010 (3) KLT 862 (SC). The above decision is to the effect that suit seeking eviction of tenants from properties, which are admittedly Wakf properties, could be instituted only before the Civil Court and not before the Tribunal. 2. Sri.K.M.Firoz, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as the revision petitioners did not admit before the Wakf Tribunal that the properties are Wakf properties, these cases are not covered by the above judgment of the Supreme Court. 3. Sri.G.Unnikrishnan, Sri.C.P.Mohammed Nias and also CRP.Nos.24/2008 & others 2 Sri.Srinath Girish, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit in harmony before us that all the revision petitioners admit the properties to be Wakf properties. 4. We record the above submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. We are of the opinion that the properties are Wakf properties and that is why the Wakf Tribunal was approached. Hence, we have no hesitation to conclude that these cases are covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court. The result is as follows; The judgment and decree under revisions are set aside. The suit is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to institute fresh suit on the same cause of action. If fresh suit is filed within one month from today, time during which the suit was pending before the Wakf Tribunal and the time the revisions were pending before this Court and a further period of one month will be excluded from the reckoning for limitation under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dpk