M/S. Sri Goudi Parshwanath ... vs Mohd.Jahangir
2021 Latest Caselaw 94 Tel

     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.

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

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.

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.

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

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