Allowed

C.G.State Wakf Board v. Rafique Ahmed Khan and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC23 Nov 2009WP227/5717/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of applications to file documents and examine witnesses under CPC. The High Court held that since the documents were official records of undisputed authenticity and relevant for adjudication, the trial court should have admitted them to avoid injustice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside. Applications under Order 8 Rule 1A and Order 16 Rule 1 CPC allowed subject to payment of costs. Petition allowed.

C.G.State Wakf Board Vs Rafique Ahmed… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2009)

¶1

HIGH COURT^{OFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR}

¶2

w.p. [2mNo.5717^OF2009

¶3

PETITIONER DEFENDANT N0. 1

¶4

Chhattisgarh^{StateWakfBoard}

¶5

RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFF

¶6

Rafique Ahmed^{Khanandothers}

¶7

Pos'r FOR^{ORDERonQ3noVEMBER,2009}

¶8

Sd/’ Dhirendra^Mishra r " Judge

¶9

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT^BILASPUR W.P. 227 No.5717 OF 2009

¶10

Writ etition under Article 227^{oftheConstitutionofIndia.}

¶11

PETITIONER Chhattisgarh State Wakf Board, DEFENDANT Through its : Chief Executive No.1 Officer, Dr. S.A, Farooqui, aged about 49 years, S/o Shri A.'S. Farooqui, C-12, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (CG) RESPONDENTS . Rafique Ahmed Khan, aged about 79 PLAINTIFF years, S/o Late Haji Mohammad Massod Khan, Resident^ofJuniLine, Tahsil and District Biiaspur (CG), At present^{FlatNo.113,UtkarshNiman,} Mangalwari Bazar, Sadar Nagpur (MH) Defendants no. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through 2 & 3 secretary, [Department of Dharmik Nyas 8r. Dharmswa, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 3. Intezamia Committee, Jama Masjid Bilha Bilaspur, through (Waki) Mohammad Sharif, aged about 72 S/o late Ghafoor Khan, years, resident of Om Nagar, Jarha bhata, Bilaspur (CG), Vice President and Authorized Representative and PatrOn of Intezamia^Committee.

¶12

Pres Mr. Mr.	ent: G.S. K. R,	Agrawal, Nair, Advo	Sr. Advocate with cate.		For the petitioner.
Mr. Adv Adv	Ma ocate ocate.	nindra with Mr.	Shrivastava, Sr. Harsh Wardhan,	:	For respondent ^No.1,
Mr.	Sume	(Pa sh Bajaj,	ssed ^on 0 §§_ R‘D Novembe E R ^{Govt. Advocate.}	r,	2009) For the State.

¶13

Dhirendra Mishra,^J

¶14

This petition under^{Article227oftheConstitutionofIndia} is directed against^{theorderdated} 16th September,²⁰⁰⁹ passed in Case No.4—A/07, whereby the Chhattisgarh Wakf Tribunal, Raipur has rejected the petitioner]^defendant No.1’s application

¶15

under Order^{8Rule1AmadwithSectim;151oftheCodeofCivil} Procedure for permission to take the documents as per list on record, and the application^underOrder 16 Rule 1 read with Section 151 ,of CPC for permission to exa‘mine additional witnesses, 2, Mr. G.S. Agrawal,^learned Sr. Advocate with^Mr. K.R. Nair, Advocate, for the petitioner/defendant No.1, submitted that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit in the year 1990 for declaration that the suit properties notified in the official Gazette dated 25.8.1989 are his predecessors’ personal properties^{andnotWakfAlalAulad.Thepetitionerinitswritten} statement denied the allegations of the plaint and submitted that the notification^was published after due survey and after affording an^{opportunityofhearingtothepersons,whowerein} possession^{atthetimeofsurvey.Thematterwastransferred} to M.P. Wakf Tribunal after coming into force of the Wakf Act, 1995. After formation of the State of Chhattisgarh, the Chhattisgarh Wakf Tribunal started functioning in the year 2007. The petitioner was directed by the Chhattisgarh Wakf Tribunal to appear on 10.10.2007 before it, Respondent No.3 was subsequently^{addedasdefendantNo.3anditwasproceeded} ex—parte before the Tribunal. The civil revision preferred by respondent No.3 was allowed by the High Court on 29.7.2009 and respondent No.3 was permitted to take part in the before the Tribunal. Respondent No.3 filed its proceedings written statement on 17.8.2009 and the matter was fixed for framing^{ofadditionalis/sues.}

¶16

In the meanwhile, the petitioner sent reguisition to the M.P.Wakf Tribunal and in response thereof, somE*documents were received from^the M.P. Wakf^{Tribunalandonly} thereafter, the said documents were sought to be filed before the Chhattisgarh Wakf Tribunal. ’The'; petitioner also filed an to' examine^{someimportantwitnesses} application^for permission after discovery of documents. However, both the applications have been^{rejectedbytheTribunal.}

¶17

It was further^arguedthat all the^documents, proposed to be filed, are public documents and they form part of official

¶18

record of a statutory body created under the Wakf Act, 1995. The Tribunal has rejected the application only on the ground that the High Court has directed to conclude the trial Within three months. The documents, proposed to be filed, are important documents and are necessary for just resolution of the dispute between the parties and they demolish the very foundation of^the plaintiff’s pleadings^intheplaint. The subject matter of the property relates to the property described at S1.No.130 of the Gazette Notification notified as Wakfproperty, whereas respondent No.1 has prayed for declaration that the said property is not the Wakf property, but it is his personal property. Thus, the controversy involved in the suit relates to the interests of Muslim Community at large. In these circumstances, the Court below ought to have allowed^boththe applications and permitted the petitioner to examine the witnesses, mentioned in the application, after taking the documents,^as per^{listwiththeapplication,onrecord.}

¶19

It was further argued that it is settled law that the documents may be filed at any stage, particularly when authenticity of the same is undoubted as rules of procedure under the C.P.C. are meant for^assisting the parties and^notto punish^them.

¶20

is placed on the judgment in the matter of ‘Reliance Buchibai Vs. Nagpur^{University1and} Quameruddin Vs. state. of M.P.2

¶21

On the other hand, Mr. Manindra^Shrivastava, learned Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harsh Wardhan, Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1, would argue that the suit is‘pending since 1990, for almost 19 years. The petitioner/defendant No.1 has filed its ‘written statement in the year 1992 and issues were framed on 11.10.1995. The plaint^Was, subsequently, amended on 27.5.2008 on account 10f subsequent events and consequential amendment in the written statement was also permitted on 30th May, 2008. The parties^were afforded ample opportunities to produce^documentsand the petitioner availing

¶22

‘ 1946 NLJ. 406 2 1987-11 M.P.W.N. (245)

¶23

¢re

¶24

¶25

the opportunities, filed documents from time to time. The petitioner^hasamended its written statement in the year²⁰⁰⁸ and also filed documents on 8.6.2009 and 15.6.2009. In the meanwhile, respondent No.3 was added as a party and it was allowed to file written statement by order of this Court dated 29.7.2009 and there is a direction to expeditiously decide the suit within a period of three^months. It is further submitted^{thatrespondentNah/plaintiffisan} old and infirm person, his statement has been recorded on commission; the plaintiff^has already closed his evidence and the matter is fixed for eVidence of defendants. In these circumstances, the application for permission to file 51 additional documents, after 19 years of filing of the suit, has rightly been rejected as the petitioner has not been able to establish that he was prevented from filing the aforesaid documents at earlier stages by sufficient cause. There is no illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order warranting interference and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶26

I have heard learned^{counselforthe} parties, gone^through their pleadings and also perused the documents available on record, including^{theimpugnedorder.}

¶27

From pleadings of the petition, return filed by respondent No.1 and rejoinder thereto, it is not in dispute that the documents, which^the petitioner proposes^{tofileinsupportofits} w ritten statement, are relevant for adjudication of the controversy between the parties. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff^hasclosed his evidence and thereafter, Onlthe basis^of Written statement filed by the newly added defendant No.3, issues have been^framedinthe year^{2008,andthesuitisatthe} stage of evidence of the defendants. The contention of the No.1 ‘before the Chhattisgarh Wakf petitioner/defendant Tribunal was^{thatthematterwas} pending^{beforetheM.P.Wakf} Tribunal; Chhattisgarh Wakf^{Tribunalbecamefunctionalonlyin} the year 2007; the petitioner received notice of the aforesaid case in the year 2007 and thereafter, it could trace the documents from the file of the case, which was with the M.P.

¶28

« f

¶29

Wakf Tribunal, and. as soon as the^{dgcumentswere:} discovered, the sam€ were filed with an application^underOrder8 Rule 1A read with Section 151 of CPC before the Chhattisgarh Wakf Trib unal,

¶30

Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1A of Order 8 envisages that a document which ought^tobe produced^{inCourtbythedefendant} under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on^{hisbehalfatthe} hearing of the suit. Thus, a discretion has^{beenvestedwiththe} Court to receive documentary evidence at any stage, if good cause is shown to^{itssatisfaction.Thediscretionvestedwiththe} Court should be exercised to further justice as all the rules of being meant for administration of justice and too procedure technical a view should not be taken. Where relevancy of the document for^the purposes^{ofadjudicationofthecontroversyis} not disputed^{andtheonlyobjectionto} its admission is delay in filing, in such circumstances,^{thediscretionshouldbeexercised} lib erally,

¶31

In the matters of Quameruddin2, learned Single Judge of the M.P. High Court considering the above aspect held that where the document, which has been permitted to be filed, is official record, admission of the same at the belated stage is It has been further observed that the rules of justified. procedure^{areonlymeanttoassistthepartiesandnottopunish} them. 9. Similarly, in the matter of Buchibail also, the documents were, undoubtedly, produced^{ataverylatestageafter61outof} 63 witnesses were examined by the plaintiff,anéd‘^it has been observed that where the documents are official record of undoubted authenticity, which may assist the Court to rightly decide the issue before it, the same should be permitted to be ' filed.

¶32

In the instant^case, the documents proposed to be filed^by the petitioner^{arethedocumentsfromtheofficialrecordofM.P.} Wakf Tribunal. They are relevant^for proper^{adjudicationofthe} controversy^betweenthe parties; the suit is still at the^stageof

¶33

defendants’ evidence, in these circumstances, the trial Court should have allowed the applications of defendant No.1 and permitted it to file documents as per list and should have the defendant No.1 to examine the witnesses as permitted proposed^inthe application, by^{imposingappropriatecostupon} defendant No.1. The rejection of the^aforesaid applications may cause grave injustice^{todefendantNo.1.}

¶34

¶35

In the resnlt, the impugned order is set aside. Both the applications preferred by the petitioner/defendant No.1 under Order 8 Rule 1A read^{withSection151,andunderOrder16Rule} 1 read with Section 151 of the C‘P.C. are allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/by the next date of hearing, payable^{totherespondentWo.1/plaintiff.} The petition is, accordingly,^allowed. The parties are directed to remain present before the! Tribunal on 7th December,^2009. /__l1

¶36

smDhirendra^Mishra f Judge

¶37

C.G.State Wakf Board v. Rafique Ahmed Khan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.G.State Wakf Board v. Rafique Ahmed Khan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Udaya Sahakari Grih Nirman Sanstha Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Bharat Lal Chouhan Vs State of Cg and Others

Namdev Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Jiwan Liviengstone Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Prem Chand Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Vipra Arts,Comm.and Physical Ed.College Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.