IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 CRP.No. 689 of 2006(E) --------------------------- WOS.20/2005 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): 2ND DEFENDANT: ---------------------------------------------- TOWN JUMA MASJID, KALADY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHAJAHAN, S/O. KASSIM, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF AND 1ST DEFENDANT: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.A. STEPHEN, S/O. ANTONY, KUREYATHU VEETTIL, CHALAMATTOM VILLAGE, OKKAL KARA KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. PRESIDENT, TOWN JUMA MASJID, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ C. R. P. No.689 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J It is apparent and it is also conceded by Sri.T. K. Venugopalan, the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff that the judgment which is under revision in this case is squarely covered by the judgment of the SC in Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010(3) KLT 862 (SC) . In view of that judgment we set aside the judgment and decree under revision and remand the matter back to the Wakf Tribunal, Ernakulam. The respondent/plaintiff can apply for return of the plaint and related papers for presentation C. R. P. No.689 of 2006 -2- before the proper court. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. S. GOPINATHAN JUDGE kns/-