IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to provide sufficient cause to condone delay in filing a Revision Petition, as per the provisions of the Limitation Act and relevant court rules.

ORDER :

The revision petitioner has filed application in IA.I of 2023 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone delay of 593 days in filing this Revision Petition in assailing the order dated 17th August, 2019 passed in Application No.20 of 2017 by the learned Presiding Officer, Karnataka Waqf Tribunal, Kalaburagi. The application is supported by the affidavit of Syed Mohammed Hussaini, in which he has stated that the Petitioner is an Octogenarian and is suffering from various ailments because of which he is not able to travel easily and frequently. Further, it is stated that there was also COVID-19 pandemic during 2020-2022 and considering his age, he was required to be more cautious and was not advised to travel. The medical records of the revision petitioner are also enclosed with the application. The Revision Petitioner has produced discharge summary issued by SevenStar Hospital and another discharge summary issued by New Era Hospital and Research Institute. Further it is stated that after the impugned judgment, he was under the impression that there is no provision for further Revision and he was not aware about the period in which the Revision Petition can be preferred. He had approached his Counsel only recently and filed this Revision Petition. The delay is due to bonafide reasons which are beyond his control and not intentional. It is also stated that if the delay is not condoned, the Revision Petitioner would be put to huge hardship and irreparable loss and on the other hand, no prejudice would be caused to the other side.

2. On behalf of respondent No.3, statement of objections is filed by way of affidavit of one Syed Ashraf Raza, in which it is stated that the application filed by the Revision Petitioner is not maintainable either on law or on facts. The contents of the affidavit reveal that the reasons assigned are false and baseless and are created only for the purpose of filing this false case and the same is liable to be rejected. It is further stated that the Revision Petitioner has filed another application under Section 83(2) of the Karnataka Waqf Act, 1995 in Application No.22 of 2019 before the Karnataka Waqf Tribunal, Kalaburagi, against the respondents therein challenging the order dated 04th October, 2019, appointing the respondent No.3 as Muthawalli and Sajjada Nasheen of Dargah Hazrath Syed Shah Shams Alam Hussaini (Rh) Raichur. It is further stated that, in the said Application, the petitioner filed IA.5 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Waqf Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has rejected the said application and the main petition also dismissed the main petition on 30th March, 2022. Further, it is stated that, the order dated 17th September, 2019 passed by the Waqf Tribunal in Application No.20 of 2017, the petitioner filed the Application under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act, 1995 in Application No.22 of 2019 on 11th October, 2019. It is further stated that, though in the application filed seeking condonation of delay it is stated that the petitioner was suffering from various ailments, but the Medical Discharge Summary clearly shows that the petitioner was discharged on 29th June, 2019. Hence, the contents of the affidavit seeking condonation of delay are totally false, baseless and are contrary to records and there is no sufficient cause made out by the petitioner for condoning the delay. It is further stated that the delay is more than one year nine months, which is noting but pure negligence on the part of the petitioner. It is further stated that the reasons shown by the petitioner indicates negligence of the party.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner:

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the impugned order was passed on 17th August, 2019, and the petitioner filed this petition before this Court on June 15, 2023. He submitted that if the COVID-19 pandemic period is excluded, the petitioner has filed the revisi