IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2010 / 15TH ASWINA 1932 CRP.No. 886 of 2006() --------------------- OS.58/2003 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER: DEFENDANT: ------------------------------- SIDDIQUE, S/O. RAYAMKANDATH MUHAMMED KUTTY HAJI, AGED 55,THRIKKANAPURAM AMSOM, DESOM,PONNANI TALUK, INSANE,REP.BY NEAR RELATIVE & GUARDIAN P.M.MUJEEB, S/O.R.K.SIDDIQUE,AGED 25 YEARS,R/AT PUTHIYAVEETTIL MEPPAYIL,THAZHEYANGADI AMSOM,DESOM,VADAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU RESPONDENTS: PLAINTIFFS: -------------------------- 1. NAJATHUL ISLAM SABHA, KUTTIPPURAM, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, RASHEED MUSALIAR, S/O.ABDULLA MUSALIAR, AGED 39 YEARS, KUTTIPPURAM AMSOM, DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 2. NAJATHUL ISLAM SABHA (REGD.), REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, NADAYINGAL VALAPPIL KUNHIMUHAMMED, S/O. KADER, AGED 57 YEARS. ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ FOR R1,R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C KURIAKOSE & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 886 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010. O R D E R Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Sri. Sudhissh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner submitted before us that though the revision petitioner had contended before the Wakf Tribunal that the building in question is not a wakf property, he is now conceding that the building is a wakf property. We find from the impugned judgment that it is accepting the case of the respondents that the building is a wakf property that the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned decree for eviction. According to us, the issue is covered by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun (2010 (3) KLT 862 (SC)). We set aside the judgment and decree under revision and dismiss the suit as withdrawn giving liberty to the respondents to file a fresh suit before the competent court on the same cause of action. We make it clear that if the suit is filed by the respondents within three weeks of production of certified copy of this order, the period till filing of the suit will be excluded for reckoning limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. PIUS C KURIAKOSE, (JUDGE) P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) knc/-