IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 CRP.No. 387 of 2008 --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/04/2008 IN IA 1047/2007 IN OS.38/2007 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 IN I.A./DEFENDANTS 1 TO 5: --------------------------------------------------- 1. ATHUTTI MOHIYUDDEEN PALLI SAMRAKSHANA COMMITTEE, ATHUTTI, A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, REGN.NO.860/2006, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT- L.K.KUNHABDULLA, S/O.AHMED HAJI, ATHUTTI HOUSE, CHEEMENI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DIST. 2. L.K.KUNHABDULLA, S/O.AHMED HAJI, ATHUTTI HOUSE, CHEEMENI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DIST. 3. P.MUSTHAFA, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, KOOLIYAD HOUSE, PETTIKUNDU, CHEEMENI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DIST., SECRETARY, ATHUTTI MOHIYUDDEEN PALLI SAMRAKSHANA COMMITTEE. 4. P.MUSTHAFA, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, KOOLIYAD HOUSE, PETTIKUNDU, CHEEMENI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DIST. 5. K.M.ABDUL JABBAR, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI, KOOLIYAD HOUSE, PETTIKUNDU, CHEEMENI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM. CRP.No. 387 of 2008 RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS IN I.A& 6TH RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFFS& 6TH DEFENDANT: --------------------------------------------- 1. ATHUTTI MOHIYUDDEEN PALLI SAMRAKSHANA COMMITTEE, ATHUTTI, POST PETTIKUNDU, CHEEMENI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGODE DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT-N.M.ABDUL RAZAK, S/O.LATE MAMMU, KOOLIYAD HOUSE, CHEEMENI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGODE DISTRICT. 2. N.M.ABDUL RAZAK, S/O.LATE MOHAMMED, KOOLIYAD HOUSE, PETTIKUNDU, CHEEMENI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGODE DISTRICT. 3. N.SHAHUL HAMEED MOULAVI, S/O.LATE ABDUL KHADER HAJI.K., -DO-, -DO-. 4. THE KERALA WAKF BOARD, NEAR JAWAHARLAL NEHRU INTERNATIONAL STADIUM, V.I.P.ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS FOR CAVEATOR R4 BY SRI.M.M.SAIDU MUHAMMED,SC,WAKF BOARD. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2009, ALONG WITH CRP NO. 388 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ............................................................................... C.R.P.Nos. 387 & 388 OF 2008 ......................................................................... Dated this the 3rd November, 2009 O R D E R P.R. Raman, J: Athutti Mohiyudheen Palli Samrakshana Committee represented by L .K. Kunhabdulla,styled himself as the President, and others are the petitioners in both the Civil Revision Petitions. The respondent in C.R.P. No. 387 of 2009 is the very same Committee, as mentioned above, represented by N.M. Abdul Razak. Both these Civil Revision Petitions arise out of a common order passed in I.A.No. 1047 of 2007 in O.S.No. 38 of 2007 and I.A.No. 1138 of 2007 in O.S.No. 45 of 2007. 2. O.S.No. 38 of 2007 is filed by the respondent in C.R.P. 387 of 2008, whereas O.S.No. 45 of 2007 is filed by the petitioners herein. Both the suits are for permanent prohibitory injunction, seeking to restrain the other from obstructing the C.R.P.Nos. 387 & 388 OF 2008 2 management and administration of Madrassa. Temporary injunction applications were also filed along with the Suits by the respective parties, seeking to restrain others from causing obstruction to the Management until disposal of the suit. Evidently, both the plaintiffs in the respective suits were claimed to be in the management. I.A.s were accordingly heard together and disposed of by a common order, by which the Wakf Tribunal allowed the application filed by the plaintiff in O.S. 38 OF 2007,(the respondent herein) and dismissed the interim injunction petition filed by the petitioners herein. Hence these Revision Petitions. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal did not consider the materials on record in its entirety before forming any prima facie finding regarding as to who was in management and administration of the Madrassa. According to him, the alleged brake opening the lock by the petitioners, as a result of which, the Madrassa was not functioning for a short while, has influenced the mind of the Court in rejecting the application for injunction filed by the C.R.P.Nos. 387 & 388 OF 2008 3 petitioners herein. According to him, the findings regarding the alleged break opening the lock itself is contrary to the evidence in the case. 4. Per contra, the learned Counsel Shri R. Ramadas, appearing for the respondents contended that the Court below has considered all the relevant aspects of the matter and the documentary evidence produced in the case in arriving at a prima facie finding as to who was in administration of the affairs of the Madrassa. In so far as the finding cannot be characterised as perverse, interference is not warranted in these revisions. They also filed I.A.No.1269 of 2009 seeking to produce additional documents to support the impugned order passed by the Court below. But we do not think in the factual situation that it is necessary to allow the said contention or to allow the said petition seeking permission to produce the documents since the Court below had no occasion to consider those documents while passing the impugned order. Therefore, correctness or otherwise of the order has to be decided based on the materials available on record. It is open to the respondents, if at all they C.R.P.Nos. 387 & 388 OF 2008 4 support the case of the respondents, to produce it in the final adjudication of the dispute between the parties in the Suit. Therefore this I.A. is dismissed. 5. Now coming to the question as to whether the order passed by the court below is liable to be interfered in these Revisions, it has to be noticed as to whether the court below has considered the cardinal principle, viz., the balance of convenience and also prima facie case, while deciding the matter at the interlocutory stage. 6. Both sides have produced voluminous documents in support of their contention. Altogether 38 documents were produced by the plaintiff in O.S.No.38 of 2007, whereas the petitioners herein as plaintiffs in O.S. 45 of 2007 has produced 8 documents, besides Ext.C1 Commission Report and Ext.C2 Plan. To arrive at a finding as to who was in the administration, the Tribunal has elaborately considered all these documents. Reference was made to Exts. A24 to 30 electricity bills, Ext.A31 receipt produced in O.S.No.38 of 2007 (to show possession of the plaintiffs therein), Ext.A32 telephone bill, C.R.P.Nos. 387 & 388 OF 2008 5 Ext.A35 and 36 basic tax receipts issued in the name of the President of Mohiyudheen Palli Samrakshana Committee and Mohiyudheen Juma-ath Palli Committee respectively. Of course, the name of the President is not mentioned in those documents. Reference was also made to the General Body meeting held for electing a new Committee and the resentment expressed by few members belonging to the petitioners' group expressing non co- operation for the reasons stated in the letter issued which are Exts. A14 to A16. Even though those letters are denied by the petitioners herein, at this stage, it may not be necessary to conclusively say whether or not such letters were issued by the petitioners herein and the same will be considered in the Suit. 7. The prima facie case, as found by the Court below cannot be interfered with at this stage. The documents, viz., electricity bill, receipt thereof as also the alleged election said to have been conducted and the resentment expressed in the notice (though to be accepted finally subject to the opportunity being given to the other side in the final suit) would show that the finding of the Tribunal is not perverse warranting interference C.R.P.Nos. 387 & 388 OF 2008 6 by this Court. However, since the purpose of evaluating the evidence at this stage is only to find out the prima facie case, detailed examination of these documents will have to be made while answering the issues arising for consideration in the main suit. Therefore, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. However, we make it clear that the observation and finding of the Court below/Tribunal will be limited to the finding of the prima facie case and the Tribunal will consider the entire matter de nova, untrammeled by any of the observations made in the impugned order, at the time of considering the main Suit. The Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of as above. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk