Dismissed

Seethi Marakkarakath Alikoya Wakf, v. v.Ramesh Kumar

Kerala HC2 Dec 2019CRP(WAKF)/63/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was a revision petition challenging orders of the Waqf Tribunal which restored a suit dismissed for default after condoning delay and implementing a cost award. The High Court held the Tribunal's exercise of discretion was not illegal and dismissed the revision.

What the court decided

AI extract

Seethi Marakkarakath Alikoya Wakf, Vs v.Ramesh Kumar — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

¶6

MONDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶7

CRP(WAKF).No.63 OF 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS 574/2019 OF WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE

¶9

REVISION PETITIONER/1ST DEFENDANT :

¶10

SEETHI MARAKKARAKATH ALIKOYA WAKF, A WAKF REGISTERED BEFORE THE KERALA STATE WAKF-BOARD (REGN.NO.6139/RA) REPRESENTED BY ITS, MUTHAVALLI, S.V.IMBICHI PATHUMMABI, AGED 76, D/O.ALIKOYA, RESIDING AT PREMIER VILLA, 15/691, MANANTHAPALAM, KALLAI, NAGARAM AMSOM, KOZHIKODE - 673 003.

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SMT.V.B.SANTHINI SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF NO.1/DEFENDANTS 2 TO 7 :

¶14

1 V.RAMESH KUMAR, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 52 YEARS, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, KOTTOOLI AMSOM, PARAYANCHERY DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.UPXX/387, SIVAPURAM AMSOM, KARUMULA DESOM, KARIYATHANKAVU POST, BALUSSERY VIA, KOYILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶15

2 SMT.S.V.IMBICHI, AGED 76 YEARS, 21/429, “AYSHAS”, K.P.KUNHIKOYA ROAD, KALLAI, NAGARAM AMSOM, KOZHIKODE - 673 003.

¶16

3 KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE, EROTH CENTRE, BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673 001, KASABA AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶17

4 RAJEEVAN NAMBIAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O.SANKARAN NAMBIAR, THERUVATHKANDY, ATHOLI VILLAGE, MODAKKALLUR DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶18

CRP(WAKF).No.63 OF 2019

¶19

¶20

5 K.CHANDRAN,

¶21

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O.CHATHU, KOYYALUMMAL HOUSE, NARIPPATTA DESOM, NARIPPATTA VILLAGE, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶22

6 N.PRABHAKARAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, KUNDDAMKANDY HOUSE, BALUSSERY AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶23

7 T.K.BALAN NAIR, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, S/O.ERACHAN NAIR, THANNIKUNDUMMAL HOUSE, KAKKUI PANCHAYATH, PUNNASSERY AMSOM, KUTTAMBUR AMSOM, KUTTAMBUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶24

8 SHEEJA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, W/O.BABU RAJ, AYYATUCHALIL, ERAVANNUR, MADAVOOR POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶25

OTHER PRESENT:

¶26

SC, WAQF BOARD-SRI. T.P.SAJID

¶27

THIS CRP (WAKF ACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

CRP(WAKF).No.63 OF 2019

¶29

¶30

C.K.ABDUL REHIM & T.V.ANILKUMAR, JJ.

¶31

============== ============================

¶32

CRP(Wakf)No.63 of 2019

¶33

=============================== Dated this the 2^nd day of December, 2019

¶34

ORDER

¶35

C.K.Abdul Rehim, J.

¶36

The petitioner herein is the I^st defendant in O.S.No.574/2019 on the files of the Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode. The I^st respondent herein is the plaintiff and the respondents 2 to 8 are the defendants 2 to 8 herein before the Tribunal.

¶37

The suit in question was dismissed for default on the part of the I^st respondent/plaintiff, on 24.02.2018. After some time, the I^st respondent filed RP: I.A.No.84/2019, seeking restoration of the suit, accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay of 150 days occurred in filing that application, as IA No.83/2019. On 23^rd July, 2019, the Tribunal considered both the above applications together and passed an order in RP: I.A.No.84/ 2019 condoning the delay subject to awarding of cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the defendants in the suit. The case was adjourned to 16.08.2019 for verifying the payment of the cost. The above revision petition is filed challenging the orders passed in RP: I.A.No.84/2019 and IA No.83/2019, both dated 23.07.2019.

¶38

CRP(WAKF).No.63 OF 2019

¶39

¶40

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out that, the reasons mentioned for causing the delay was found to be not genuine and acceptable to the Tribunal. Therefore the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the applications, is the argument. On a perusal of the impugned order passed in RP I.A.No.84/2019, it is evident that the explanation offered with respect to the delay caused was that, the plaintiff had failed to appear and to give instructions to the lawyer on 24.02.2018 because he was laid up due to 'Rheumatoid Arthritis' since the last five months, from 10.02.2018 onwards. In support of such contention, the plaintiff had produced Ext.A1 Medical Certificate. He had also adduced oral evidence in the applications. But the evidenced in this regard was rebutted from the side of the petitioner, who is the I^st defendant, by producing Exts.B1 and B2 documents, which would show that the plaintiff had appeared before the JFCM-III Court, Kozhikode in a criminal case, C.C.No.121/2017, on 26.04.2018. The plaintiff explained that he was compelled to go to that court because of a non-bailable warrant pending against him, with the aid of a companion. However, the Tribunal observed that one more chance can be given to the plaintiff and ordered restoration of the suit in terms of payment of cost.

¶41

CRP(WAKF).No.63 OF 2019

¶42

¶43

We are of the considered opinion that the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any material illegality, error or impropriety. Even assuming that the Tribunal was not fully convinced with respect to the reasons mentioned for causing the delay, it was left open to the discretion of the Tribunal to take a lenient view, keeping in mind the settled larger principles. It is always held by various High Courts and the Apex Courts that, the courts shall endeavour to decide causes on merits to the possible extent, rather than dismissing them on technicalities. It can only be considered that the lenient view taken by the Tribunal is based on such sound principles.

¶44

Therefore, we are not persuaded to accept the challenges raised against the impugned orders as one passed on an illegality, impropriety or error.

¶45

Consequently, the revision petition deserves no merit, and the same is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

C.K.ABDUL REHIM

JUDGE

Sd/-

T.V.ANILKUMAR

JUDGE

rkj

Seethi Marakkarakath Alikoya Wakf, v. v.Ramesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Seethi Marakkarakath Alikoya Wakf, v. v.Ramesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lekha Roy, Vs Roy Thomas

Evm Motors Vs the Assistant Commissioner (I)

The Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise Vs Southern Ispat and Energy Ltd.

Dr.Sreedevi, Vs the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax

Nallattutodika Moideenkutty Vs Kerala State Waqf Board

Shabana S Vs Commissioner of Entrance Examination