Karnataka High Court
Abdul Kareem @ Iqbal And Anr vs Md. Abrar Khan And Ors on 6 January, 2023
Bench: C.M. Poonacha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.M.POONACHA
REVIEW PETITION No.200049/2017
BETWEEN
1. ABDUL KAREEM @ IQBAL
S/O LATE GAFAR-A
AGE: 52 YEARS, NOW WORKING AS
MUTAWALLI OF DARGA R/O H.NO.6-2-73,
BHAGNAM BIDAR.
2. ABDUL AZEEM S/O LATE GAFAR-A
AGE: 50 YEARS, R/O H.NO.6-2-73
BHAGNAM BIDAR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR KALLOOR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MD. ABRAR KHAN S/O MD. ARIF KHAN
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
BY NATURAL FATHER MD. ARIF KHAN
S/O MD. BASHIR KHAN
AGED: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O GOLAKHANA BIDAR.
2. THE STATE
THROUGH THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BIDAR.
3. THE ADMINISTRATOR
KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKF
2
DERUL AWAKAF, NO:6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BANGALORE-560052.
4. THE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT WAKF
ADVISORY COMMITTEE, BIDAR.
5. THE COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY TO
WAKF, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GANESH S. KALABURAGI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, SR. COUNSEL FOR R1;
SRI VIRANAGOUDA M. BIRADAR, AGA FOR R2;
SRI P.S.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47
RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND
REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 05.01.2012 PASSED BY THIS
COURT IN CRP NO.2045/2010 AND DISMISS THE CRP
NO.2045/2010 FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN ENDS OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well
as learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present petition is filed by the
petitioners under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC
seeking for review of the order dated 05.01.2012
passed by this Court in CRP No.2045/2010.
3. CRP No.2045/2010 was filed by the first
respondent herein being aggrieved by the dismissal of
the suit filed in O.S.No.50/2005 by the Karnataka
Wakf Tribunal, Kalaburagi. The said suit was filed for
declaration of title and for possession.
4. This Court vide its order dated 05.01.2012
passed the following order:
"(a) Petition is allowed.
(b) The judgment and decree of the
Tribunal is hereby set aside.
(c) Plaintiff's suit is decreed partly.
(i) declaring plaintiff is the absolute
owner in possession of the plaint schedule
property.
(ii) A decree of permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from interfering
with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.
(d) The prayer of the plaintiff for
deletion of entry No.652 in the gazette
notification at Ex.P9 is rejected as the
properties are totally different and the said
entry in no way affects the interest of the
plaintiff.
(e) No costs."
5. The petitioners in the present petition are
the rival claimants to the suit properties and are
claiming the relief through their father. It is the
grievance of the petitioners that neither the
petitioners nor their father were arrayed as a party to
the suit in O.S.No.50/2005 or CRP No.2045/2010 and
the order in the said proceedings have been passed
behind their back. Hence, they have filed the present
petition seeking for review of the order dated
05.01.2012.
6. It is clear that the petitioners being the
third parties to the proceedings in O.S.No.50/2005
and CRP No.2045/2010, it is not open to the
petitioners to file the present petition under Order 47
Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking to review the order
dated 05.01.2012 passed in CRP No.2045/2010.
7. Needless to state that if any rights of the
petitioners are affected, it is always open to the
petitioners to avail other civil remedies available to
them under law to safeguard those rights. The same
cannot be a ground to file the present petition.
8. In view of the aforementioned, the petition
is rejected as being devoid of merit.
No costs.
SD/-
JUDGE
Srt
