Partly allowed

Al Ameen Educational Society v. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2021WP/50181/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition assailed the Wakf Tribunal's order allowing a defendant to reopen a case and produce additional documents via three interlocutory applications. The High Court held that while the Tribunal had discretion, allowing applications in instalments without conditions warranted interference. The petition was partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed in part; Defendant allowed to lead evidence on documents produced in IA No. 20 subject to payment of Rs. 7,000 to Advocates Welfare Fund within four weeks.

Al Ameen Educational Society Vs Bruhat… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.50181/2017 (GM-WAKF)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

AL-AMEEN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, AL-AMEEN COLLEGE CAMPUS, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR. SUBHAN SHARIFF ... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. C.S. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV.)

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE OPPOSITE TO LIC BUILDING, NEAR TO TOWN HALL, HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶12

2 . DARGAH HAZRATH ATAULLA SHAH

¶13

& NABI SHAH, BADA MAKAN (WAKFS) H.SIDDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE - 27, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. SYED IMRAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

¶17

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY: A) WAKF TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE ALLOWING I.A.NO.19-21 FILED BY THE R-1/DEFENDANT BY ITS ORDER DTD 30.10.2017 VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.,

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 30.10.2017, passed on I.A. Nos.19 to 21 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal, Bengaluru in proceeding O.S. No. 1/2014.

¶21

The plaintiff in O.S. No.1/2014 referred above is the writ petitioner. I.A.Nos.19 to 21 were filed by the 1^st defendant in the said suit. The defendant No.1 sought to re-open the case and to produce certain documents and to recall DW-1 to lead further evidence in support of his defence. These applications are filed after the closure of final arguments by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff objected to the said applications filed by defendant No.1.

¶22

¶23

The Tribunal in terms of the impugned order has allowed the applications and permitted the defendant No.1 to lead evidence by producing additional documents. The additional documents sought to be produced are said to be the documents relating to the previous proceeding pertaining to the suit property.

¶24

The plaintiff is assailing the said order, allowing applications at I.A. Nos.19 to 21, on the premise that the applications to re-open the case and produce additional documents are repeatedly filed by defendant No.1 to delay the hearing of the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also draw the attention of the Court to Annexure - D, the order dated 07.03.2017, passed in Writ Petition Nos.8609/2017 & 9782/2017. In the said proceeding, the order in favour of this defendant No.1/respondent No.1, permitting re-opening of the case and production of additional document passed by the WAKF Tribunal was questioned by the present petitioner.

¶25

¶26

This Court in terms of the above said order, has dismissed the petitions with an observation that defendant No.1 has to lead evidence on the next date of hearing without seeking for adjournment. In the backdrop of these facts, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Tribunal should not have allowed the applications I.A.Nos.19 to 21.

¶27

The learned counsel for the respondent justifying the impugned order would submit that the documents sought to be produced are pertaining to the previous proceeding in respect of the suit property and would further submit that in terms of the direction issued in the previous order in the writ petition, DW1 was examined on the appointed date. He would further urge that the documents sought to be produced are necessary for adjudication of the case and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶28

¶29

This petition is filed invoking jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The orders passed on I.A. Nos.19 to 21 are more in the nature of discretionary orders wherein applications seeking reopening of the case and production of additional documents are allowed enabling the party to produce evidence before the Tribunal. Thus, there is not much scope to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Tribunal. However, since the defendant is filing applications for production of documents in instalments, the Tribunal should have put defendant No.1 on certain terms and to this extent, the order calls for interference by this Court. Hence, the following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

(i) This writ petition is allowed in part.

¶32

(ii) Defendant No.1 is allowed to lead further evidence on the basis of the documents produced in I.A.No.20.

¶33

¶34

(iii) It is also made clear that permission to lead evidence and to produce documents is granted subject to the condition that the defendant No.1 shall pay cost of Rs.7000/- to the Advocates Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶35

(iv) In case if the cost referred above is not paid within four weeks, 1^st defendant is not entitled to the benefit of orders passed on I.A. Nos.19

¶36

to 21 and said applications shall stand dismissed.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

brn

Al Ameen Educational Society v. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Al Ameen Educational Society v. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Green World Development Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. D. Sridhar Vs the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents

Sri Damodar Aithala Vs the Karnataka Information Commission

K S Swaroopa Immanuel Vs Shashi Kala

M/S Concept Technologies Vs Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Smt. M. J. Sumadevi Vs Smt. Umadevi @ Uma. S