To condone delay under Section 95 of the Wakf Act, an appellant must prove they were 'prevented' by sufficient cause from filing the appeal.

O R D E R

Hema, J.

This revision arises from an order of dismissal of an application for condonation of delay, under Section 95 of the Wakf Act. There was a delay of 12 years and 209 days in filing the appeal. A counter statement was filed by the contesting respondents and evidence was also adduced and after consideration of the same, the Wakf Tribunal dismissed the petition.

2. As per the averments in the petition filed by the appellants before the Wakf Tribunal, the delay is not willful or deliberate. It happened because the appellants bonafide believed that the order is impugned in the appeal filed before the Tribunal was not binding on the revision petitioners, since they were not parties to the proceedings before the Wakf Board and no separate order was passed by the Wakf Board to remove the petitioners from the post of Muthavalliship. It is also averred in the petition that the petitioners got legal advice that : 2:

the order dated 7.11.1995 of the Wakf Board is to be challenged before the Tribunal. The 6th respondent in the appeal had taken up a contention that petitioners did not challenge the impugned order of the Board before the Tribunal. It is for such reasons that there was delay of 12 years and 209 days in filing the appeal against the order of the Wakf Tribunal. 3. The 1st respondent Wakf Board filed a counter statement and contended that the petitioner accepted the order of the Wakf Tribunal and submitted objection before the Board against certain clauses shown in the draft scheme. Having accepted the order, he cannot discard the same. A counter statement was filed by 4th and 6th respondents also, contending that there is no sufficient cause for the delay and there is no reason for condoning the delay.

4. Evidence was adduced. AW1 was examined. Exts.A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the petitioners. No evidence was adduced on the side of the respondents. After hearing both sides and on going through the evidence, learned Tribunal found that, it has come out in evidence that, as per the impugned order passed by the Wakf Tribunal, the scheme was settled, general body election was conducted and administration : 3:

of Wakf was handed over to the general body through intervention of the court.

5. The Tribunal also found that it is unbelievable that the petitioners were unaware of all these proceedings initiated before the judicial authorities and they came to know about the proceedings only later. The general statement that they were unaware of all the proceedings for 12 years and 209 days cannot be recorded as a sufficient cause stated in Section 95 of the Wakf Act, it is further held. The petition was dismissed and hence, this revision petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and contesting respondents. Admittedly there is a delay of 12 years and 209 days in preferring an appeal challenging the order of the Wakf Board dated 7.11.1995. As per the impugned order, the Wakf Board found that a scheme was to be framed for the proper administration of the Wakf. The parties were directed to submit draft schemes with notice to opposite sides within one month from the receipt of the order. It was also ordered that after consideration of the objection of the respective parties, the Wakf Board finalised the scheme. Admittedly, the scheme was finalised after about 6 years of passing of the order in : 4:

2002.

7. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent pointed out that there is long proceeding in finalising the scheme. It is undisputed that objection will be called for and draft scheme will be published in the office of the Wakf Board and also office of the Wakf. Thereafter it will be published in the Gazette, after finalising the scheme. It is after a long drawn procedure that the scheme is finalised and it has taken about six years to finalise the same. Petitioners were aware of all these. It is stated in the counter statement itself that the petitioners had raised objection to certain clauses in the draft scheme before