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. 539 of 2006() --------------------- OS.21/2004 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PLAINTIFF ------------------------------ SALAFI TRUST, MATTANCHERI, COCHIN-2, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, A.K.BABU, RES. AT THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ALISSERY WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS ------------------------- 1. U.HASHIM BAIG, AMCW, 24/14, ALIA PARDHA CENTER, SALAFI COMPLEX, COLLECTORATE JUNCTION, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 2. KERALA WAKF BOARD REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE, OFFICER & SECRETARY, KERALA WAKF BOARD, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR, SC, WAKF BOARD FOR R2 SRI.M.M.SAIDU MUHAMMED,SC,WAKF BOARD FOR R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2010, ALONG WITH CRP No. 540 OF 2006 & CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ C.R.P.Nos.539,540 & 541 OF 2006 ------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in these civil revision petitions are the eviction decrees passed by the Wakf Tribunal in the suits 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.P.A.Abdul Jabbar, 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. SriK.S.Hariharaputhran learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit before us that all the revision CRP.No.539 & others 2 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 judgments and decrees under revisions are set aside. The suits are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to institute fresh suits on the same cause of action. If fresh suits are filed within one month from today, time during which the suits were 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 CRP.No.539 & others 3