HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.3 OF 2020
IN/AND
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1055 OF 2020
O R D E R:
In this Revision filed under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995, the Judgment and Decree dt.20.03.2019 in O.S.No.255 of 2016 on the file of the Telangana State Wakf Tribunal is challenged.
2. The petitioner in this Revision is the 2nd defendant in the said suit.
3. The said suit had been filed in the year 2010 as O.S.No.40 of 2010 before the A.P. State Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad by respondents 1 to 3 for a declaration that the suit schedule property is part and parcel of the wakf property under the Ashoor Khana Alawa Punch Bhai,Karwan Sahu, Hyderabad and for a perpetual injunction restraining the 4th respondent herein from alienating the said property.
4. The suit was later transferred to the Telangana State Wakf Tribunal and renumbered as O.S.No.255 of 2016 and by Judgment and Decree dt.20.03.2019, the said suit was decreed with costs.
5. The instant revision was presented on 01.10.2020 invoking Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 with a delay of 470 days.
6. I.A.No.3 of 2020 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by the petitioner in the Revision to condone the said delay of 470 days in filing the Revision.
2
7. It is the contention of the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the Application for condonation of the delay that petitioner is a Religious Institution which had purchased the subject property under a registered sale deed dt.25.02.2010 from the 4th respondent/1st defendant; though it engaged a counsel and filed a written statement, its President had expired on 30.03.2018, and its Secretary, who had filed the Vakalath and written statement, also expired on 16.07.2020. It is contended that the Secretary of the petitioner Trust was suffering with Parkinson's disease prior to his death and was being treated for the said disease, that he had lost his memory and was unable to communicate with other members of the society, that the other members of the society had no knowledge of the pendency of the suit before the Wakf Tribunal so as to defend themselves. It is stated that the petitioner therefore could not represent its case before the Tribunal and contest the case. It is stated that the current officer bearers of the petitioner have no knowledge of the pending proceedings before the Wakf Tribunal and only when respondents 1 to 3 came to dispossess the petitioner on 26.09.2020 through police, the petitioner came to know about the ex parte Judgment.
8. Reliance is placed on the order dt.27.03.2020 passed by a Full Bench of this Court in W.P. Urgent No.1 of 2020 barring execution of any decree by Executing Courts which order was extended till 06.11.2020.
9. It is also stated that the counsel for the petitioner before the Wakf Tribunal used to inform the employees of the petitioner that there was no 3 Judge in the Tribunal and had failed to inform that the matter was placed before the Incharge Officer; that the counsel also kept the petitioner in dark and had not cross-examined P.W.1 nor intimated with regard to progress of the case to the petitioner, and so a complaint is lodged before the Bar Council by the petitioner.
10. It is contended that though there is a delay of 470 days in filing the Revision, because the petitioner is a charitable and Religious Institution, the said delay is to be condoned.
11. The 6th respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the Judgment of the Wakf Tribunal dt.20.03.2019 was executed and possession of the property had been delivered to the Muthawalli on 20.05.2019 itself much prior to filing of the Revision and that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner by the 4th respondent had been declared to be void by the Wakf Tribunal as being contrary to Section 51 of the Wakf Act and was set aside.
12. Respondents 1 to 3 also filed a counter affidavit stating that there was absence of due diligence on the part of the surviving Trustees of the petitioner to pursue the suit pending before the Wakf Tribunal and the petitioner failed to explain when the new President and Secretary were appointed, and why the surviving Trustees failed to exercise due diligence when the Secretary of the Trust died on 16.07.2020, and the President of the Institution died on 30.03.2018, and the said events cannot be a valid ground for condonation of the delay. 4 The consideration by the Court
13. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Religious Institution which is managed by a Trust Board. It had engaged a counsel before the Wakf Tribunal and had even filed a written statement disputing the plaint averments and contended that it had purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dt.25.02.2010.
14. Assuming for the sake of argument that the President of the petitioner Institution expired on 30.03.2018, the other Trustees of the petitioner ought to have pursued the suit, and through the counsel already engaged by the petitioner, cross-examined P.W.1 and addressed arguments in the suit. No explanation is offered by the petitioner why the rest of the Trustees did nothing to pursue the suit.
15. The Judgment in the suit was admittedly delivered by the Court below on 20.03.2019. The Copy Application for certified copy of the said Judgment was filed on 06.09.2019 and the copy was delivered on 07.09.2019. No explanation is offered by the petitioner for the delay of almost 5 months in making an Application for certified copy of the Judgment passed by the Wakf Tribunal in the suit O.S.No.255 of 2016.
16. Under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995, though no time limit is prescribed for filing a Revision against any decision rendered by the Wakf Tribunal, yet it was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to file the said Revision within a reasonable period of at least three (3) months from the date of the Judgment.
5
17. Why the instant Revision was filed on 01.10.2020 more than one year after the certified copy was obtained by the petitioner is not satisfactorily explained by the petitioner.
18. The lockdown on account of Covid-19 pandemic had commenced on 22.03.2020 and continued till the first week of July, 2020. But filing of matters in the High Court online had been permitted and even physical filing was being permitted at least from July, 2020. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek to take advantage of the lockdown imposed on account of Covid-19 pandemic or the interim order granted by the High Court in W.P. Urgent No.1 of 2020 on 27.03.2020 in that context because much prior to commencement of the lockdown, the Revision ought to have been preferred by the petitioner who was aware of the adverse order passed against it.
19. Though the petitioner seeks to blame the counsel engaged by it before the Wakf Tribunal in the suit for not keeping the petitioner's officials informed about the events transpiring in the suit from time to time, the same cannot be countenanced because it was the duty of the Trustees of the petitioner as well as other employees of the petitioner also to keep track of what was happening in the suit and cross-examine the witnesses and address arguments therein.
20. In this view of the matter, I am satisfied that no sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner for condonation of the inordinate period of delay of 470 days in filing the instant Revision Petition under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 challenging the Judgment and 6 Decree dt.20.03.2019 passed in O.S.No.255 of 2016 by the Telangana State Wakf Tribunal.
21. Accordingly, I.A.No.3 of 2020 in C.R.P.No.1055 of 2020 is dismissed.
22. Consequently, the CRP is also dismissed.
23. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this CRP shall also stand dismissed. No costs.
____________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J Date:19-01-2021 Svv