IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1228 of 2009 (M/S) Abrar Hussain & three others. ……Petitioners. Versus Nanhey Miyan & three others. …….Respondents. Shri Gopal Krishan, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Dharmendra Barthwal, advocate for the respondent No. 4. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition, moved under Article 226 read with Article 227 of Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 27.05.2009, passed by Waqf Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in Misc. (Waqf Reference) case No. 47 of 2001, whereby the application for substitution, moved by the petitioners, was dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a Waqf reference Misc. case No. 47 of 2001, was filed by Itwari Miyan (father of the petitioners), against Nanhe Miyan and Waqf Board on 20.04.2001. Admittedly, Itwari Miyan died on 30.05.2006. Petitioners are sons of said Itwari Miyan. It appears that no application for substitution was moved by the petitioners, claiming that they are managing the affairs of the Waqf property, as Mutwalli, after death of 2 their father for almost three years. As such, after 90 days of death of Itwari Miyan, the proceedings of the case stood abated, as against him by operation of law under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of Order XXII of the Code. Petitioners had knowledge of death of their father. The only plea taken by them was that they were not aware of the fact that their father had instituted case before Waqf tribunal. If that be the case, their claim that they had entered into the shoes of their father as Mutwalli, and as such, they are legal representatives of the deceased Itwari Miyan, cannot be accepted. Waqf tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, has passed order dated 27.05.2009, after hearing the petitioners and the respondents and rightly held that the proceedings of the case stood abated, for no application for substitution was filed within time (rather for two years). 4. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in its jurisdiction under Article 226 read with Article 227 of Constitution of India. The petition is dismissed summarily. (Stay application No. 6536 of 2009, also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:04.08.2009 Sweta 3 4 5 6 7 8