Plaintiffs challenged Wakf Board enquiry orders under Section 54(4) of the Wakfs Act before the Wakf Tribunal; their suits were dismissed as time-barred. The High Court held the 60-day limitation runs from the order after notice compliance, upheld the Tribunal's finding, and dismissed the revisions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2025:KHC:44115 CRP No. 176 of 2019 C/W CRP No. 175 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 176 OF 2019
C/W
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 175 OF 2019
IN CRP No. 176/2019
BETWEEN:
SRI. S.A. GANGADHARAPPA S/O ANJANAPPA, AGE 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.126, HASIKARAGADA MANTAPA ROAD, KENGERI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 060.
…PETITIONER
Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. B.O. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2025:KHC:44115 CRP No. 176 of 2019 C/W CRP No. 175 of 2019
HC-KAR
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 052.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SYED SUHAIL ALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. MOHAMMED TIPPU SULTHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS CRP IS FILED U/S.83(9) OF THE WAKFS ACT 1995 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.10/2011 ON ISSUE NO.9 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE HOLDING CONCURRENT CHARGE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, KARNATAKA WAKF TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE DIVISION, BANGALORE AFFIRMATIVELY ANSWERING ISSUE NO 9 AND DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED U/S.54(4) OF WAKFS ACT 1995 AND ORDER VII RULE 1 OF CPC.
IN CRP NO. 175/2019
BETWEEN:
SRI. SUBRAMANI S/O CHINNAPPA AGE: 55 YEARS R/A HOUSE BEARING KHATHA NO.264, ANNAMMA DEVI TEMPLE ROAD KENGERI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 060
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.O. CHANDRA SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
HC-KAR
AND:
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SYED SUHAIL ALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. MOHAMMED TIPPU SULTHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.83(9) OF THE WAKFS ACT 1995 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2012 PASSED ON ISSUE NO.9 IN OS NO.9/2011 ON THE FILE OF
THE XXXI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, HOLDING CONCURRENT CHARGE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, KARNATAKA WAKF TRIBUNAL BANGALORE DIVISION, BANGALORE AFFIRMATIVELY ANSWERING THE ISSUE NO.9.
HC-KAR
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and
respondent.
IN O.S.No.10/2011
HC-KAR
the plaintiff or interfering into the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule property.
iii. To grant such other reliefs.
IN O.S.No.9/2011
HC-KAR
“Whether the defendant proves that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation as alleged in para 2 of the written statement?”
5. Learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the
parties on issue No.9 as the application filed by the plaintiff was per se not maintainable by way of mathematical precision and dismissed the suit while answering issue No.9 in the affirmative and dismissed the suit inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.9 to 12 as under:
“9. The undisputed facts of the case are that the second defendant (The Enquiry Officer & Additional
HC-KAR
Chief Executive Officer) by exercising the powers under Sec.54(3) of Wakf Act 1995 initiated the enquiry proceedings against the plaintiff and others in Enquiry Case No.ENQ/5/BNU/2003 and passed an order dated 30.5.2011 for removal of encroachment from the wakf property.
10. In my view, the subject matter of this suit is fairly covered under Sec.54 of Wakf Act, 1995. The present suit is also filed before this Tribunal by invoking the provisions under Sec.54(4) of the Wakf Act 1995. In my view, the defendants 1 and 2 are justified in holding that the suit is barred by limitation. According to Rule 81(3) of Karnataka Wakf Rules 1997 any person aggrieved by the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer under Sec.54(3) may institute a suit before the Wakf Tribunal under Sec.54(4) within 60 days from the date of the said order.
11. The stipulated period of time fixed to file the suit by invoking Sec.54(4) of the Wakf Act 1995 is 60 days. The Chief Enquiry Officer has passed an order dated 30.5.2011. There is admitted delay of 3 months 15 days in filing the present suit. The learned advocate for the plaintiff during the trial of the suit has issued a notice under Sec.89 of Wakf Act 1995 to the defendants. In my view, the provisions of Sec.89 of Wakf Act 1995 is not applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, issue notice is of no consequence.
12. The learned advocate for the plaintiff has filed an application (I.A.No.1) under Sec.5 of Limitation Act dated 15.11.2011 to condone the delay of 3 months and 15 days in filing the present suit. In my view, the provisions of Sec.5 of Limitation Act is not applicable to suits (original cause of action) and it is only applicable to the appeals or any application other than the suits. Sec.5 of Limitation
HC-KAR
Act is not applicable to the original suits (original cause of action). Hence, question of condoning the delay of 3 months and 15 days (by invoking Sec.5 of Limitation Act) in filing the present suit does not arise. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
Issue No.9 is answered in the affirmative. It is held that the suit is barred by time.
Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act dated 15.11.2011 is dismissed. The suit is dismissed with costs ( as barred by time).”
6. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs are
before this Court, in these revision petitions on the following common grounds:
HC-KAR
State Board of Wakf the petitioner has instituted the suit before the Tribunal. In view of the said circumstance the original suit before the Tribunal has to be considered as an appeal against the order passed by Chief Executive Officer of Wakf Board. Hence the provisions of section 5 of The Limitation Act are applicable to the original suit instituted before the tribunal against the Wakf Board.
while fairly admitting the question of limitation being mixed question of law and facts, tried to distinguish the
HC-KAR
case of the petitioners by contending that since the application under Section 54(4) of the Wakfs Act, cannot be treated as a original cause of action having regard to the notice period of 60 days and the period fixed for filing the application is one and the same.
HC-KAR
HC-KAR
barred which requires no interference in this revisional jurisdiction.
15. Accordingly, following:
ORDER
Revision petitions are dismissed .
Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE
KAV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51
2 issues framed by the court
Whether suits under Section 54(4) of the Wakfs Act challenging a Section 54(3) enquiry order were barred by limitation given the 60-day period and the mandatory 60-day notice under Section 89?
Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to condone delay in filing such a suit before the Wakf Tribunal?
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Sri S.A. Gangadharappa
Sri Subramani
Karnataka State Board of Wakfs
The Enquiry Officer and Additional Chief Executive Officer, Karnataka State Board of Wakfs
The Managing Committee Jamiya Mosque, Kengeri
V Srishananda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
