##PAGE1## ##PAGE2##

CRP.No.4828 of 2025

For Respondent : Mr.L.Gavaskar

**********

ORDER

The petitioners are defendants in O.S.No. 168 of 2019 filed before

the Tamil Nadu WAQF Tribunal. The petitioners filed I.A.No. 234 of

2025 seeking condonation of delay of 1392 days in filing the application

to set aside the ex-parte order dated 05.04.2021. The WAQF Tribunal

dismissed the said application as against which, the present revision has

been filed.

2. I have heard Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr.L.Gavaskar, learned counsel for the respondent/

plaintiff.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

first defendant in the suit, Naseema Begum had died even in the year

2016, and therefore the very institution of the suit against a dead person

and consequently the ex- parte order passed are a nullity and would not

bind the petitioners. The learned counsel would further state that the

respondent has therefore played fraud not only upon the Court, but also

2/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/12/2025 09:44:59 pm )

##PAGE3## ##PAGE4## ##PAGE5## ##PAGE6## ##PAGE7## ##PAGE8##

CRP.No.4828 of 2025

13. Even with regard to the allegation of fraud played by the

respondent/plaintiff, I find that even in the plaint, the present petitioners

have all been impleaded as defendants in the suit and therefore, they

cannot contend that decree has been snatched away suppressing the fact

of demise of Naseema Begum even in 2016.

14. As regards to the argument of Mr.Sanjiv Kumar Singh, that the

respondent/plaintiff endowment has not even been recognized by the

Board, in the light of the 5^th defendant Shajahan Hussain, having

admitted the tenancy of the respondent/plaintiff in the earlier proceedings

before the competent Civil Court and on the strength of the

representations and undertakings made on behalf of the petitioners, the

Execution Proceedings taken to execute a decree for possession were

also drawn. It is therefore totally unfair and unreasonable on the part of

the petitioners to now contend that they are not tenants and that the

respondent has not been recognized by the WAQF Board.

15. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the revision.

The well-reasoned order of the WAQF Tribunal does not call for

interference in revision. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

8/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/12/2025 09:44:59 pm )

##PAGE9##

CRP.No.4828 of 2025

Considering the fact that the proceedings is of the year 2010, the Waqf

Tribunal/IX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, shall dispose of the E.P.

No.1993 of 2022 by 30.01.2026. However, no order as to costs.

19.12.2025

rkp

Index : Yes

Internet : Yes

To:

1. The President, Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal,

Chennai.

2.The President,

Ameerunnissa Begum Sahiba Endowment,

No.76, Pycrofts Road, (Bharati Salai),

Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005.

P.B.BALAJI, J.,

rkp

9/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/12/2025 09:44:59 pm )

##PAGE10## Click Here to Read the rest of this document