SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 595

MARKANDEY KATJU, T.S.THAKUR
SYED MOHIDEEN – Appellant
Versus
RAMANATHAPURA PERIA MOGALLAM JAMATH – Respondent


ORDER

The application for substitution is allowed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 24th January, 2002 passed in C.R.P. No.1430 of 2001. The facts in detail have been set out in the impugned order and hence we are not repeating the same here. Having gone through the impugned order, we noticed from paragraphs 20 & 21 of the impugned order that the High Court has only observed that certain points were not considered by the Wakf Tribunal which should have been taken into consideration. Hence, the High Court remanded the matter. We agree with the aforesaid observations of the High Court and see no reason to interfere with the same. We, however, may make it clear that in terms of Section 83(5) of the Wakf Act, 1995 the Wakf Tribunal is deemed to be a civil court and has the same powers as are exercised by civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit or executing a decree or order. The civil courts are in turn competent to issue injunctions in terms of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 C.P.C. Similar orders can, therefore, be passed by the Wakf Tribu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top