Janab K. Abubacker (Died) vs Katheeja Beevi
2022 Latest Caselaw 11882 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 11882 Mad
Judgement Date : 5 July, 2022

Madras High Court

Janab K. Abubacker (Died) vs Katheeja Beevi on 5 July, 2022

                                                                       C.R.P(MD)No.729 of 2010

                                  BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              Dated:     05.07.2022

                                                       CORAM:

                                     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

                                            C.R.P(MD)No.729 of 2010
                                                      and
                                             CMP(MD)No.6859 of 2019

                1.Janab K. Abubacker (died)

                2.A.Bibi John

                3.A.Sherin Fathima

                4.J.Mubarak Fathima

                5.S.Mothijan

                6.Humer Syed

                7.R.Jameela Beevi

                [P2 to P7 are brought on record as
                Lrs of deceased sole petitioner,
                vide Order dated 13.06.2019 made
                in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011]
                                                                      ... Petitioners

                                                         Vs
                1.Katheeja Beevi

                2.Kathoon Beevi

                3.Mumtaj

                4.The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board,
                 through its Executive Officer,
                  Kamarajar Salai, Chennai.

                1/7



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                        C.R.P(MD)No.729 of 2010



                [R4 impleaded as party respondent vide
                Court order dated 24.08.2020 made in
                CMP(MD)No.6859 of 2019]
                                                      ... Respondents

                PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227
                of the Constitution of India, to set aside the judgment and
                decree dated 06.01.2010 in O.S.No.4 of 2008 on the file of
                the Wakf Tribunal cum Principal Sub Judge, Tiruneveli.


                                  For Petitioner         : No representation
                                  For Respondent         : Mr.S.Yasar Arafat
                                  Nos.1 and 3
                                  For Respondent         : Mr.V.Chandrasekaran
                                  No.4
                                                         ORDER

This civil revision petition is filed under Section 83

of Tamil Nadu Wakf Act, 1996 r/w Section 115 of the Civil

Procedure Code as against the judgment and decree made in

O.S.No.4 of 2008 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal cum the

Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli.

2.This petition was filed in the year 2010.

When the petition was taken up for hearing on 17.09.2020

a representation was made on behalf of the petitioners that

the 2nd respondent died and therefore prayed for time for

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(MD)No.729 of 2010

bringing the legal heirs of the 2nd respondent on record.

3.Thereafter this Court by order dated 10.12.2021

granted one more chance to the petitioners, to bring on

record the legal heirs of respondents and if the steps are

not taken by the petitioners, the civil revision petition

will get automatically stand dismissed as against

respondents 1 to 3.

4.Thereafter at the request of the learned counsel for

the petitioners this civil revision petition was listed and

adjourned to 19.01.2022, 14.02.2022, 03.03.2022,

13.03.2022, 27.04.2022, 23.06.2022 and 30.06.2022.

On 30.06.2022 the learned counsel for the petitioners

reported 'no instruction' and filed a memo dated Nil and

this Court by recording the said memo, directed the

registry to print the names of the petitioners in the cause

list and accordingly, this civil revision petition is

listed today in the names of the petitioners.

5.Today when this petition is taken up for hearing,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(MD)No.729 of 2010

there is no representation for the petitioners.

This petition is of the year 2010 and is pending for more

than 12 years. Though it was reported a long back that

respondents 1 to 3 died, the revision petitioners have not

taken necessary steps to bring the legal heirs on record.

The learned Counsel also filed a memo that there was no

reply from the petitioners even after several letters being

sent and information being passed

6.The learned Counsel has not filed any proof of

service for having given sufficient notice to his clients.

As per Rule 12 of Chapter II of the Bar Council of India

Rules, framed by the Bar Council of India, an advocate is

not expected to withdraw from engagements once accepted,

without sufficient cause and unless reasonable and

sufficient notice is given to the client, which reads as

follows:

“12.An Advocate shall not ordinarily withdraw from engagements once accepted without sufficient cause and unless reasonable and sufficient notice is given to the client. Upon his withdrawal from a case, he shall refund such part of the fee as has not been earned.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(MD)No.729 of 2010

7.Further, there is no provision in the Civil Procedure

Code to give a fresh notice to the party, which is already

represented by an advocate or pleader, who on any

particular day pleads no instruction, will cause not only

delay the proceedings and also brand arrears of cases.

This civil revision petition is filed in the year 2010 and

is pending for more than a decade and also in the absence

any such mandatory provision, therefore this Court is not

inclined to issue fresh notice to the petitioners.

8.This Court perused the grounds raised in support of

this civil revision petition and the earlier orders passed

by this Court in this petition.

9.The deceased first petitioner claiming to be a

Muthavalli filed a suit in O.S.No.4 of 2008 before the Wakf

Tribunal cum the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli,

for permanent injunction and the trail Court dismissed the

suit holding that the first petitioner/plaintiff has not