Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 33653
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K. Narendran, Muralee Krishna S., JJ
K.M. Abdu – Appellant
Versus
A.M. Abdul Khader – Respondent
CRP NO. 94 OF 2010
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T.H. Abdul Azeez, B. Amanulla
For the Respondents: T.K. Saidalikutty, N. Ajith, S.V. Balakrishna Iyer, Geetha P. Menon, P.B. Krishnan, P.M. Neelakandan, R. Suraj Kumar
A court may dismiss a revision petition as 'not pressed' when the petitioning party voluntarily enters into an out-of-court settlement and instructs their counsel to cease prosecution of the case.
Headnote:The present revision petition was filed under S. 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995, challenging the prior orders of the Waqf Tribunal and the State Waqf Board. The core facts involve a dispute over property or management subject to the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal. The essential issue raised in the petition was to set aside the lower tribunal's decision. The ratio decidendi is centered on the principle that the court may dismiss a petition as 'not pressed' when the parties have reached an out-of-court settlement and the petitioner expresses no intention to prosecute the matter further. The final result is that the revision petition is dismissed as not pressed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background and procedural history of the revision petition initiated under the waqf act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. dismissal of petition following a memo of settlement between the parties. (Para 3) |
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioners, who are the applicants in W.O.A.No.7 of
2008 before the Waqf Tribunal, Ernakulam and the petitioners in O.P.No.44 of 2003 before the State Waqf Board, have filed this Civil Revision Petition, invoking the provisions under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995, seeking an order to reverse the judgment dated 13.10.2009 of the Waqf Tribunal in W.O.A.No.7 of 2008 and the order dated 08.09.2008 of the Kerala State Waqf Board in O.P.No.44 of 2003 and set aside the same. This civil revision petition was filed along with an application to condone the filing delay of 32 days, which was condoned by the order dated
12.07.2010 of a Division Bench of this Court.
2. On 29.07.2010, when this civil revision petition came up for admission, the matter was admitted on file. Notice was issued to the respondents and the trial court records were called for.
3. Today, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners has filed a not-press memo dated 04.06.2026, which reads thus;
“The petitioners have informed the counsel that they do not intend to prosecute the above revision petition and has instructed me not to proceed with the case since the matters have been settled out of court between the parties. Hence the memo is filed accordingly.”
In such circumstances, recording the aforesaid memo dated
04.06.2026 filed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, this revision petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Sd/-
