1 CIV.R.A.NO. 126 of 2004 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.126 OF 2004 (Syed Madar @ Baba Miyan Syed Ahmed , died, through LRs Syed Rafiq Syed Madar and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mrs. A.N.Ansari, Adv., for the petitioners. Mr.V.B.Ghatge, AGP for respondent State. Mr. B.A.Darak, Adv., for R.2. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:8-12-2010 1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. Rule was issued on 2.4.2002, when it was Writ Petition No.4464/2001. Thereafter it has been converted to Civil Revision Application No. 126/2004 and Rule was issued. Due to absence, it was dismissed for non prosecution on 23.9.2004 and then again restored by subsequent order dt.23.2.2007. 2. After hearing the Counsel, Rule in the Civil Revision Application. 2 CIV.R.A.NO. 126 of 2004 3. Heard finally. The record and proceedings in Suit No.7/2001 from the Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad, is available, which has been perused by the respective parties. 4. The short controversy in the matter is, the petitioner did not appear in application No.2/2001 based on service of notice from suit No.7/2001, being properly served, however, he sent a letter to the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal that there were two suits filed by him he, indeed, threatened, not to issue such letters/notice again to him. The Tribunal received this letter on 4.4.2001. This letter has been verified by both the learned Counsel. 5. I find that the conduct of the petitioner before the authorities was not happy, though he tried to demonstrate that he was not keeping well and for that purpose he has examined Dr.Christopher Moses below Exh.17. 3 CIV.R.A.NO. 126 of 2004 6. The factual matrix in the controversy need not be answered as the present petitioner, has lost at two proceedings relating to the same properties. However, that by itself will not mitigate his right to prosecute the litigation (No.7/2001) before the Wakf Tribunal. 7. The slackness to which reference is given by the learned Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, though could be said so, however, the critical physical condition of the petitioner, inhibited him to prosecute the matter diligently and, consequently, ex parte order was slapped against him. Sufficient grounds were demonstrated before the learned Tribunal, however, they are not analyzed and crystallized in the order. In the set of legal position, the rights of the petitioner should not be squeezed for his absence which, apparently, was not deliberate. 4 CIV.R.A.NO. 126 of 2004 8. Civil Revision Application is allowed. The ex parte order dt. 23.4.2001 in Wakf Suit No.7/2001 is set aside. The injunction which was flowing against the present petitioner, to operate till disposal of the said proceedings. As the laxity on the part of the petitioner has dragged the litigation for virtually nine years, the petitioner shall pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand) as cost to the respondent in the revision. The parties to appear before the learned Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad, on 19th Jan.,2011. Record and proceedings be sent immediately. Rule made absolute in above terms. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/126-04cra