IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 7TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 33305 of 2009(R) -------------------------- OS.9/2008 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.V.ABDUL KHADER, AGED 66 YEARS, BUSINESS, S/O.KUNHAHAMMED, RESIDING AT MALABAR HOUSE, KACHERI AMSOM DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.G.ASHOKAN SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, ANSAROOL ISLAM PITHEYLEE MIL ANAM ALIAS MOHAMMEDAN EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION. 2. P.V.KUNHIBI, W/O.C.P.KUNHAHAMMED, BARAMI VALIYAKAM, THANGALS ROAD, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, KOCHI. ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ FOR R1 SMT.M.SHAJNA FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX:- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 18-1-2008 IN AS. 43/2000 OF THIS COURT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF PLAIN IN OS.248/08 OF THE I ADDL. SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF IA.1126/08 IN OS.9/08 OF THEWAKF TRIBUNAL. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THEWAKF TRIBUNAL KOZHIKODE IN IA.1126/08 IN OS.9/08 DATED 6-2-2009. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE “ADHIKARA PATHRA BILL ADHARAM” EXECUTED BY BARAMI AND AYISHA HAJJUMA ON 1-8-1951. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF IA.2994/08 IN OS.248/08 OF THE SUB COURT KOZHIKODE. (TRUE COPY) PS TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C). No. 33305 of 2009 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is Ext.P4 order passed by the Wakf Tribunal dismissing IA.1126/08 filed by the petitioner. The above IA was filed by the petitioner seeking his impleadment as additional party in OS. No. 589 of 1992 renumbered as OS. No. 9 of 2008 on the files of the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode. The application was resisted by the plaintiff contending that it is filed with the objective of delaying matters, that the petitioner who is the son of the first defendant Smt. Kunhibi has come forward with the present application. It was contended that Kunhibi is strongly contesting the case and that she does not have any interest conflicting with that of the petitioner. Under the impugned order Ext.P4, the learned Tribunal upheld the WP(C). 33305/09 -2- contentions. Sri.M.G.Ashokan, learned counsel for the petitioner would assail Ext.P4. He argued that it is not correct to say that the petitioner cannot claim any right other that of his mother the first defendant in the suit. The only claim of the mother the first defendant is that she is the Muthavalli of the Wakf whereas the contention which the petitioner intends to raise is that the property is not a Wakf property and that the same is available for partition. Mr. K.M. Firoz, learned counsel for the first respondent plaintiff would submit that there is no infirmity about Ext.P4 warranting invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 2. We have considered the rival submissions. We do not think that Ext.P4 order of the learned Tribunal is vitiated to the extent of warranting invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227. Ssupervisory jurisdiction is not to be invoked for correcting each and every mistake in an order passed by a Court Subordinate to WP(C). 33305/09 -3- the High Court. The above jurisdiction which is visitorial in nature will be invoked only in exceptional circumstances where it can be said that the order is perse illegal, without jurisdiction or perverse in the sense that such an order will not be authored by anybody having reasonable learning or training in law. Having gauged Ext.P4 by the parameters which are applicable to exercise of the visitorial jurisdiction, it is clear to our mind that there is no justification for invocation of that jurisdiction for correcting Ext.P4. Admittedly, Kunhibi, the mother and the petitioner are residing together and the mother is under the care of the petitioner himself. It is always open to the petitioner to assist his mother in defending the suit properly. The writ petition will stand dismissed. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (P.S. GOPINATHAN,JUDGE) ksv/-