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