HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Applicasit Defesid^iit No. 3 ResBondesits Civil Revision No. 30 of2008 Intejamia Committee Jama Masjid (Wakf) Belha, Distnct Bilaspur (CG), througli: Mohd. Sharif, aged about 72 years son oflate Gafur Klian, Resident of Onmagar, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur (CG), Vice President and Authorized Representative of Intejamia Coimiiittee Belha, Bilaspur (CG). Versus 1. The CG State WakfBoard througli its ChiefExecutive Officer, Raipur (CG), 2. Rafik Almied Khan son of Late Masood Khan, aged about 72 years,, Resident of Juni Line, Tahsil aiid Di^rtrict Bilaspur (CG). At present Flat No. 113 Utkarsh Niman, Masigalwari- Bazar, Sadar Nagpiir (MH). 3. The State of Chliattisgarh througli the Secretaiy, Department of Dharmik. Nyas Avain Dliarmaswa, DKS Bhavvai^ Raipur (CG). Civil Revision under Section 83 (9) ofthe WakfAct, 1995 (Smgle Beiich: IIo2iTMe Mr. N.K. AgarwaI,J.) Preseiit. : Shi'i MK Bhaduri, Advocate for applic-ant. Sl-ui GS Agrawa}, Sr. Advocate with Shri DR Minj, Advocate for respondentNoJ. Sliri Manindra SlirJ.vasta.va, Sr. A.dvocate'with Sliri Devendra Patel, Advocate fbr respondent No. 2. Slm P.K Bhaduri, Panel Limyer for the State< (Passed on 29al day ofJuiy, 2009) 1. Feeling aggrieved b)7 the order dated 06.02.2008 (Aimexiire A/4), passed by the Presiding OfEc^r, CG Walcf Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'Tribunal'), in case No. 4-A/2007, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal has rejected the application for setting aside the exparte proceedmgs dated 20.12.2007, the instant revision has been prefeiTed by the applicant herein. Pursuant to order dated 10.12.2007, the respondent No. 2 (plaintifi) impleaded the applicant as defendant in the suit. The suit came up for hearmg on 20.12.2007, since nobody appeared on behalf of applicant coiiimittee before the Tribunal on that date, the Tribunal proceeded exparte against the applicant. On 02.02.2008, the applicant moved an application, supported with medical certiflcate and affidavit, for setting aside the exparte proceedings on the gi'ouud that the Vice President of the applicant comimttee was unable to attend the court on 20.12.2007 due to his illness and the applicant's vl counsel has gone to Haj, therefore could not appear m the case. Prayer was opposed by the respondent. Tlie Tribunal, holding that the applicant has failed to assign good cause for his non appearance, dismissed the application. Hence this revision. Shi'i MK Bhaduri, leamed counsel appearing for the applicant placing reliance upon the judgments of MP Higli Court m cases of Ram Vishal v. Shobha Ram and Others1, Ramchandra v. Sagarmal2 and Mankunwarbai v. Giijabai, would submit that the suit was fixed on 20.12.07 for limited purpose ofhearing on the application for amendment. The application alone could have been decided by the trial Judge on that date and bi party proceedings ought to have been 12006(2)^IPLJ68 2 1988-HW.N. 234 31981-IW.N.56 p- continued for hearing on merits of the suit. The trial court has no jurisdiction to draw exparte proceedings against the applicant on merits of the suit. This crucial aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the trial Judge. Thus, the basic order of drawing exparte proceedings against the applicant on the merits ofthe suit is without jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside. He would ftirther submit that the applicant has also assigned good and sufficient cause for non appearance of applicant's counsel as well as Vice President ofthe applicant conimittee. He also submits thzit in absence ofgross negligence and misconduct, a party should not be deprived of the liberty ofhavmg a satisfactory disposal ofthe case which evidently can only be done when both parties have full opportunity ofplacing their case and their evidence before the cousl. Per contra., Sliri GS Agrawal, leamed Sr. counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and Shri Manindra Shrivastava, leamed Sr. counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 would submit that the Tribunal has rejected the application of the applicant by assigning cogent and sound reasons. The applicant deliberately, iii order to delay the proceedings, which are pending since 1990, filed a false affidavit as well as medical certificate. They would flirther submit that in fact no interest ofapplicant is involved in the suit and is not going to be effected by any decree which may be passed by the Tribunal. They further submit that since the proceedings in the suit are almost complete, therefore^ ifthis revision is allowed, then the proceedings ofthe suit will be further delayed. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and pemsed the record. -* ^ .^ 7. 9. 10. Admittedly, the case was fixed for hearing on amendment application on 20.12.2007 when the applicant was proceeded exparte. Thus, even if, the applicant and his counsel remained absent on such date, the Tribunal had, at the most, power to decide the application under Order 6 Rule 17 ofCPC, even in the absence of the applicant and his counsel. On that date, the suit on merits could not be said to have been called on for hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to draw exparte proceedings on merits ofthe suit. Therefore, the order of drawing exparte proceedings against the applicant on merits ofthe suit is withoutjurisdiction and desen^es to be set aside. In the result, the revision application stands allowed. The impugiied order dated 20.12.2007 is hereby set aside. Howeven to do justice with both the parties, it is directed that the applicant shall file his written statement, if aiiy, within a period of twenty days trom today and tliereafter, tlie Tribunal 'shall after affording reasonable opportunity of cross-examinmg the witaesses of the other parties to the applicant and also to adduce evidence, shall decide the case, on its own merits, as early as possible preferably within a period of tlii'ee months from the date of communication ofthis order, in accordance with law. No order asto costs. Sahu Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge