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

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL

C.R.P.No.200002/2020

BETWEEN

SYED HAMEED ASHRAF

S/O LATE SYED MOHAMMED SALEEM

AGE 40 YEARS

OCC: SAJJADANASHEN DARGA

HAZARATH SAYYAD AHMED SHAMS

ALAM HUSSAINI RH, R/O 2-2-72, ANDROON QUILI

RAICHUR-584 101.

...PETITIONER

(By Sri. A M BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)

AND

1 . THE ADMINISTRATOR/CHAIRMAN

KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKQ

6th CUNNIGHAM ROAD

BANGALORE – 560 001.

2 . THE DISTRICT WAKF OFFICER

RAICHUR – 584 101.

3 . THE MUTUWALLI

DARGA HAZRATH

SAYYAD AHMED SHAMS ALAM

HUSSAINI RH, HYDERABAD ROAD

RAICHUR – 584 101.

…RESPONDENTS

(By Sri.LIYAQAT FAREED USTAD, ADV. FOR R-1,

Sri.ABDUL MUQTADIR, ADV. FOR R-3,

Notice to R-2 Served)

2

THIS CRP IS FILED U/S.83(9) OF THE CPC, BY THE

ADVOCATE FOR REVISION PETITIONER PRAYING TO CALL FOR

THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED-01.10.2019

PASSED BY PRESIDING OFFICER KARNATAKA WAQF TRIBUNAL,

KALABURAGI,

IN

O.S.NO.06/2019

BY

ALLOWING

THIS

REVISION PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND

EQUITY.

This Petition coming on for admission, this day, the Court

made the following:-

Present revision petition is filed by the petitioner

aggrieved by the order dated 01.10.2019 passed in

O.S.No.06/2019 on the file of the Karnataka Wakf

Tribunal, Kalaburagi. The said suit had been filed by the

petitioner herein for relief of permanent injunction

restraining the respondent-Wakf Board from interfering

with his rights of performance of religious duties of Darga

Hazrath Sayyad Ahmed Shams Alam Hussaini RH, R/o.2-2-

72, Androon Quili, Raichur. An application under Order

XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was also filed along with the

suit seeking interim order of injunction pending disposal of

the suit.

3

2. The Tribunal while disposing of the said interim

application, also took up the matter regarding rejection of

plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, and by the its

order dated 01.10.2019 while dismissing the interim

application also rejected the plaint, which order is

impugned in this petition.

3. It is the contention of the petitioner that while

rejecting the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2

of CPC, the Tribunal ought not to have rejected the plaint

in O.S.No.6/2019 in exercise of its power under Order VII

Rule 11(d) of CPC. It is contended that the cause of action

was not merely the filing of writ petition, but the very

claim of the plaintiff to be the Sajjada Nasheen of Darga

Hazarath Sayyad Ahmed Shams Alam Hussaini. It is

contended that since the cause of action is bundle of facts,

the Tribunal ought not to have rejected the suit.

4. It is further case the petitioner that the Karnataka

State Board of Wakf by its order dated 14.10.2019 had

4

appointed an Administrator/Respondent No.3. Aggrieved

by the same, the petitioner herein had filed writ petition in

W.P.Nos.208138/2017 and 201057-058/2018 before this

Court. This Court by order dated 04.07.2019, disposed of

the said writ petition by making following observation at

Paragraphs 5 to 7 of the said order:

5.

In

the

light

of

the

above

said

circumstances, it is also seen in the records that a

person by name Syed Mohammed Hussaini S/o

Late Syed Chanda Hussaini also filed I.A.No.2/2018

under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of CPC

contending that he is also interested in performing

religious duties of the said institution and he would

also like to make a representation to the concerned

authorities. Though it is stated that he has to be

impleaded in this case, as this Court is not setting

aside the impugned order passed by respondent

Nos.1 and 2, but only providing opportunity to the

petitioners

to

make

a

representation

before

respondent Nos.1 and 2, same observations holds

good so far as proposed impleading applicant is

concerned. He can also make an application or

representation to respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeking

his relief in accordance with law.

6. In the light of the above said facts and

circumstances, though the Court is not setting

aside or quashing the order dated 18.07.2008 as

per Annexure-C, but a direction by way of

mandamus can be issued very well to respondent

Nos.1 and 2 that in the event of petitioners and the

said proposed impleading applicant makes any

representation

to

appoint

them

as

Sajjada

5

Nasheen, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have to give

notices to all the concerned parties including the

present Muthawalli who is cited as respondent No.5

and

also

other

necessary

parties

and

pass

appropriate orders on the said representations in

accordance with law. However, the said exercise

has to be done within a period of two months from

the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

7. This Court while granting interim order

has protected the status of the petitioners.

Therefore, the said status of the petitioners shall

continue till the representation of the petitioners

and others are disposed off by respondent Nos.1

and 2 in accordance with law.

5. Thereafter, the Wakf Board appears to have

passed an order dated 04.10.2019 appointing Defendant

No.3 as Mutuwalli and Sajjada Nasheen of the Darga.

Being aggrieved by the same, the petit

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top