Kerala High Court
Sayed Hussain Muthukoya Thangal vs Pookkoya Thangal on 12 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
Thursday, the 12th day of January 2023 / 22nd Pousha, 1944
IA.NO.8/2022 IN CRP(WAKF) NO. 39 OF 2022
(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.07.2022 IN WOS 204/2019 OF WAKF TRIBUNAL,
KOZHIKODE)
REVISION PETITIONERS/PLAITIFFS:
1. POOKKOYA THANGAL, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. ELAYITHODIYIL SAYYID
ISMALUTTIKOYA THANGAL, PAYYANAD AMSOM DESOM, ERANAD TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 676122
2. KARANTHUR MARKAZ SAKAFATHI SUNNIYYA REP. BY SECRETARY ABOOBACKER
MOULAVI S/O. ALUNGAPOYIL AHAMMED HAJI, KOYILANDY TALUK, UNNIKULAM
AMSOM, KANTHAPURAM DESOM, P.O. UNNIKULAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN -
673574
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1. SAYED HUSSAIN MUTHUKOYA THANGAL, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. ELAYITHODIYIL
SAYYID ISMALUTTY KOYA THANGAL, PAYYANAD AMSOM, DESOM, ERANAD TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676122
2. SHAREEFA KUNHI BEEVI, AGED 61 YEARS, D/O ELAYITHODIYIL SAYYID
ISMALUTTY KOYA THANGAL, PAYYANAD AMSOM, DESOM, ERANAD TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676122
3. KARAKKADAN KUNHIMUHAMMED @KUNHOOTTY, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O
AHAMMEDKUTTY, WORKING SECRETARY K.C.JAMALUDHEEN MUSLIYAR SMARAKA
ISLAMIKA COMPLEX (REG. 612/2001) PAYYANAD AMSOM, NELLIKKUNNU DESOM,
ERANAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676122
4. THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, V.L.P ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI, PIN - 682017
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to Pleased to
recall/modify the order dated 23-11-2022 by withdrawing the permission
given to the revision petitioners to conduct any prayer at all whatsoever
in the plaint schedule building, scheduled to the suit, WOS NO.204/2019 on
the files of the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode
This Application again coming on for orders upon perusing the
application and the affidavit filed in support thereof and this Court's
order dated 23.11.2022 and upon hearing the arguments of Advocate SHRI.
M.KRISHNAKUMAR (CAVEATOR) for petitioners/respondents in C.R.P(WAKF) and
of Advocate SHRI. K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON for R1 to R3/petitioners in
C.R.P(WAKF) the court passed the following:
S.V. BHATTI & BASANT BALAJI, JJ.
------------------------------------------
I.A. No. 8 of 2022
in
C.R.P.(Wakf) No. 39 of 2022
------------------------------------------
Dated: 12th January 2023
ORDER
S.V.Bhatti, J
Heard Mr K M Sathyanatha Menon and Mr M
Krishnakumar for the parties.
2. I.A. No. 8/2022 is filed with a counter affidavit and
a prayer to dismiss I.A. Nos.5 and 6 of 2022. On 23.11.2022,
after hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties,
keeping in perspective the urgency stated by the respondents
in C.R.P.(Wakf) No.39/2022, we were persuaded to modify the
order of status quo granted on 30.09.2022. We have considered
the prayer of the respondents herein, along with the
independent applications filed by the revision petitioners,
I.A. No.8/2022 in CRP (Wakf) 39/2022
briefly stated for two reliefs, namely, to conduct Uroos that is
scheduled to be conducted from May 12th to May 15th 2023 and
also to permit the revision petitioners to do payers on fourth
Sunday of every month without creating a problem to any of
the stakeholders, including the property. I.A. No.8/2022 is
filed to recall the reliefs granted by this Court in I.A. No.5/2022
dated 23.11.2022, which are adverted explicitly to as relief nos.
(ii) and (iii).
3. Mr Krishnakumar objects to granting the revision
petitioners' prayer to conduct Uroos without establishing the
right in any manner. Secondly, the said prayer must be
consistent with the specific stand taken by the revision
petitioners throughout the protracted litigation. The
arrangement made by this Court shall be the first arrangement
made in this protracted litigation. The Tribunal rejected the
petitioners' claim. By granting such prayer without
adequately examining the case of revision petitioners on
I.A. No.8/2022 in CRP (Wakf) 39/2022
merits, it is forcefully stated that the unsuccessful party is
given a benefit more than what the party would have got in
the main case itself. Therefore, he prays for vacating prayer
nos.(ii) and (iii) covered by the order dated 23.11.2022.
Adverting to the merits of the matter, the learned Counsel
informs the Court that the respondents are ready, and the
protracted pending litigation is causing uncertainty in either
preserving the property or developing the property in the
manner in which the consecration of the asset has taken place.
So, he requests an early hearing date of the CRP while vacating
the prayer nos. (ii) and (iii) in this order dated 23.11.2022.
4. Learned Counsel Mr K M Sathyanatha Menon
invites our attention to an order made in Crl. R.P.
No.1379/2013 and argues that this Court has stayed the
authorities' effort under the Criminal Procedure Code. The
building has been under lock and key, and no one was allowed
to go inside and perform the prayers. The petitioner has a
I.A. No.8/2022 in CRP (Wakf) 39/2022
prima facie case, and according to him, the Tribunal
misdirected itself in all fours while dismissing the main suit
no.204/2019 through the impugned judgment. He requests
the Court not to disturb condition no. (ii), for it arises or is to
be performed in the 2nd week of May 2023. Concerning prayer
no. (iii) if an early date in the main case is given, condition no.
(iii) can be kept in abeyance or modified suitably.
5. We have noted the arguments of both the Counsel
made in the manner of conduct of prayers at the subject
matter of the litigation. We recollect that the order dated
23.11.2022 was made keeping in perspective the ensuing event
of conducting Uroos from 04.12.2022 to 06.12.2022. The issue
requires detailed consideration before the continuation of any
of the directions. Hence, for the present, we are of the view
that prayer no. (ii) since it arises in the 2nd week of May, there
is no need to pass any order at this juncture. Regarding prayer
no. (iii) keeping the said prayer in suspended animation again
I.A. No.8/2022 in CRP (Wakf) 39/2022
leads to uncertainty and confusion in the understanding by
both sides. Therefore, the following orders, modifying the
order dated 23.11.2022 in I.A. No.5/2022.
(a) The prayer granted in sl. No. (i) since has worked
itself out, there is no need to change or disturb the said prayer
given in favour of the respondents. The said arrangement, for
whatever reason, shall be understood as having been made
only for the Uroos that is to be conducted between the 4th and
6th of December 2022.
(b) Adverting to prayer no. (ii) we are of the view that
the said prayer is to be implemented or honoured by the
parties in the 2nd week of May 2023. To accept or refuse, a little
bit of deliberation is needed. Since we are proposing a nearer
date for hearing the C.R.P., we are not disturbing the said
prayer for the present.
(c) Coming to prayer no. (iii) after taking note of the
submissions made by the learned Counsel on both sides, we
I.A. No.8/2022 in CRP (Wakf) 39/2022
refrain from observing anything on merits on the contentions
urged on this behalf, for the same would affect the merits of
the parties in the C.R.P. However, to maintain peace,
tranquillity and the prevailing status quo as on the date the
first order was made, we are convinced the prayer granted in
no. (iii) needs to be recalled and accordingly recalled.
I.A. No.8/2022 is ordered as indicated above.
C.R.P.(Wakf)
Registry is directed to call for the Lower Court Records
forthwith. Post C.R.P.(Wakf) No.39/2022, subject to part-
heard, on 19.01.2023.
Sd/-
S.V. BHATTI
JUDGE
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI
JUDGE
jjj 12/01/2023
