The Madras High Court dismissed Civil Revision Petitions filed under Art. 227 and TNN Wakf Act Sec. 83 for failure prosecute proceedings, lack of legal representation, and absence of proof of notice, noting the underlying suit lacked merit due to lack of documentation.
Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
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.
C.R.P(MD)No.729 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 05.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
C.R.P(MD)No.729 of 2010 and CMP(MD)No.9168 of 2017
1.Janab K. Abubacker (died)
2.A.Bibi John
3.A.Sherin Fathima
4.J.Mubarak Fathima
5.S.Mothijan
6.Humer Syed
7.R.Jameela Beevi
[P2 to P7 are brought on record as Lrs of deceased sole petitioner, vide Order dated 13.06.2019 made in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011]
... Petitioners
Vs
1.Katheeja Beevi
2.Kathoon Beevi
3.Mumtaj
4.The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, through its Executive Officer, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai.
1/7
C.R.P(MD)No.729 of 2010
[R4 impleaded as party respondent vide Court order dated 24.08.2020 made in CMP(MD)No.6859 of 2019]
... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2010 in O.S.No.4 of 2008 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal cum Principal Sub Judge, Tiruneveli.
For Petitioner : No representation For Respondent : Mr.S.Yasar Arafat Nos.1 and 3 For Respondent : Mr.V.Chandrasekaran No.4
ORDER
This civil revision petition is filed under Section 83
of Tamil Nadu Wakf Act, 1996 r/w Section 115 of the Civil
Procedure Code as against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.4 of 2008 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal cum the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli.
When the petition was taken up for hearing on 17.09.2020 a representation was made on behalf of the petitioners that
the 2nd respondent died and therefore prayed for time for 2/7
C.R.P(MD)No.729 of 2010
bringing the legal heirs of the 2nd respondent on record.
3.Thereafter this Court by order dated 10.12.2021
granted one more chance to the petitioners, to bring on record the legal heirs of respondents and if the steps are not taken by the petitioners, the civil revision petition
will get automatically stand dismissed as against respondents 1 to 3.
4.Thereafter at the request of the learned counsel for
the petitioners this civil revision petition was listed and
13.03.2022, 27.04.2022, 23.06.2022 and 30.06.2022. On 30.06.2022 the learned counsel for the petitioners
reported 'no instruction' and filed a memo dated Nil and
this Court by recording the said memo, directed the
registry to print the names of the petitioners in the cause list and accordingly, this civil revision petition is listed today in the names of the petitioners.
5.Today when this petition is taken up for hearing,
3/7
C.R.P(MD)No.729 of 2010
there is no representation for the petitioners. This petition is of the year 2010 and is pending for more than 12 years. Though it was reported a long back that respondents 1 to 3 died, the revision petitioners have not taken necessary steps to bring the legal heirs on record. The learned Counsel also filed a memo that there was no reply from the petitioners even after several letters being sent and information being passed
6.The learned Counsel has not filed any proof of service for having given sufficient notice to his clients. As per Rule 12 of Chapter II of the Bar Council of India Rules, framed by the Bar Council of India, an advocate is not expected to withdraw from engagements once accepted, without sufficient cause and unless reasonable and sufficient notice is given to the client, which reads as follows:
“12.An Advocate shall not ordinarily withdraw from engagements once accepted without sufficient cause and unless reasonable and sufficient notice is given to the client. Upon his withdrawal from a case, he shall refund such part of the fee as has not been earned.”
C.R.P(MD)No.729 of 2010
7.Further, there is no provision in the Civil Procedure Code to give a fresh notice to the party, which is already represented by an advocate or pleader, who on any particular day pleads no instruction, will cause not only delay the proceedings and also brand arrears of cases. This civil revision petition is filed in the year 2010 and is pending for more than a decade and also in the absence any such mandatory provision, therefore this Court is not inclined to issue fresh notice to the petitioners.
8.This Court perused the grounds raised in support of this civil revision petition and the earlier orders passed by this Court in this petition.
9.The deceased first petitioner claiming to be a Muthavalli filed a suit in O.S.No.4 of 2008 before the Wakf Tribunal cum the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, for permanent injunction and the trail Court dismissed the suit holding that the first petitioner/plaintiff has not produced any material or document to substantiate that he is the Muthavalli of the said Wakf property. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the grounds raised by the petitioners in this civil revision petition. 5/7
C.R.P(MD)No.729 of 2010
10.Accordingly this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
05.07.2022
dsk To The Principal Sub Judge, Tiruneveli.
6/7
C.R.P(MD)No.729 of 2010
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
dsk
C.R.P(MD)No.729 of 2010
05.07.2022
7/7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a Civil Revision Petition pending for over a decade should be dismissed for want of proof of service of notice and lack of representation by the petitioner.
Whether the cants to bring legal heirs on record constitute sufficient cause for the delay and failure to attend hearings.
Whether the underlying Suit for permanent injunction regarding Wakf property lacks merits since the plaintiff failed to substantiate the claim of being Muthavalli.
5 provisions across 4 enactments
Janab K. Abubacker (died)
A.Bibi John
A.Sherin Fathima
J.Mubarak Fathima
S.Mothijan
K. Abubacker
B.Pugalandhi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
