IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 11684 of 2010(R) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 27/2010 IN OS..../2010 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM OS.706/2006 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL LATHIF,S/O.KOCHU MUHAMMED, AGED 62 YEARS, HAZEENA MANZIL, KUTHIYATHODU.PO, KODAMTHURUTHU MURI OF KODAMTHURUTHU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.JAYAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KUTHIYATHODU JUMA-ATH MAHAL REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT C.M.KUNJI KOYA,CHALAKKAL HOUSE, KUTHIYATHODU PO, CHERTHALA. 2. KUTHIATHODE JUMA-ATH MAHAL, SECRETARY,P.K.ABDUL JALEEL, JASEEF MANZIL,KUTHIYATHODU PO, CHERTHALA. ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMMED FOR R1&2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------ WP(C). No. 11684 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Abdul Rehim, J. The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 order of the Wakf Tribunal, Kollam, whereby an interlocutory application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 27 days in re-presenting the plaint, was dismissed. The plaint was returned by the Munsiff Court, Cherthala, finding that the Wakf Tribunal alone has got jurisdiction in the matter. There occurred a delay of 27 days in re-presenting the plaint before the Wakf Tribunal. The petitioner sought condonation of delay by filing the interlocutory application supported by an affidavit explaining the cause of delay. In the impugned order the Wakf Tribunal found that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not sustainable as the same is one for extension of the time stipulated for re-presentation of the WP(C). 11684/10 - 2 - plaint returned by one court before the proper court. It is observed that the date fixed for re-presentation under Order VII Rule 10A of CPC cannot be extended by exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. We are of the opinion that even though the prayer if allowed will result in extension of the date stipulated for re- presentation, the Wakf Tribunal has got inherent power to decide as to whether the plaint can be accepted on condoning the delay occurred in re-representation. Taking note of the settled legal principle that causes should as far as possible be disposed on merits rather than rejecting them on technicalities, we are of the considered opinion that the issue involved in the suit need be adjudicated and disposed of on merits. Therefore, inspite of stiff opposition from the side of the respondents who are represented through Advocate Rose Michael, we are inclined to allow the writ petition, on terms. WP(C). 11684/10 - 3 - 3. In the result, Ext.P5 order of the Wakf Tribunal is hereby set aside. IA. No. 27/10 in unnumbered suit filed before the Wakf Tribunal will stand allowed, on the terms that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred only) towards cost to the respondent directly, either to the counsel appearing for the respondent before this court or to the counsel appearing before the court below within ten days from today, and file memo to that effect before the Wakf Tribunal. Once payment of the cost is noticed, the Wakf Tribunal will number the suit and proceed with adjudication of the same. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ksv/-