K.Valarmathi and Others v. Kumaresan

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant an interim against the respondent, restraining him, his subordinates, staff, officials, officers, a uthorities/person s claiming through or acting under him etc. from dispossessing the petitioners from the petition sc:hedule property for interfering with thejr possession and enjoyment over the petition schedule property into any manner whatsoever, till the disposal of the Revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MIRZA NISAR AHMEO BAIC; Counsel for the Respondents: -- The Court made the following: ORDER =-,7 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CTVIL REVISION PETITI ON Nos.477 of2022 ORDE.R: This Civil Revision Petition is hled assailing the order in I.A.No.2O3 of 2079 in O.S.No.274 of 2Ot6 (old O.S.No.65 of 20tO) daLed 29 .l | .202 1 passed by the learned Telangana State Waqf Tribunal, Hyderabad.

2.1 Petitioners are the plaintiffs and respondent is the defendalt in O.S.No.274 of 2076 (old O.S.No.65 of 2010).

2.2 Petitioners-plaintiffs have hled suir under Section 26, Order VII Rule- 1 and 2 of C.P.C and under Section Sa (a) of Waqf Act, 1995 against the respondent-defendant with a prayer to declare proceedings of defendant bearing No.M4/675/Prot/Hyd/2OOl dated 15.04.201O issued under Section 5a (3) of Waqf Act, 1995 as illegal and void and aiso for perpetual injunction against the respondent-defendant from interfering in iheir peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

2.3 The schedule property is House Municipal bearing No.1-4- 82O / 5, admeasuring 40 Sq.yards, situated at Bholakpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, with specifrc boundaries.

3. Respondent-defendant has filed his written statement and has contested the suit. i I I I i I ! I I i I i I I 2 CRP.No.477 of 2022 -rBRMR,J

4. Petitioner No.3-plaintiff No.4 has hled his chief affidavit on

09.05.2019. On 10.04.2019 petitioners have hled zrn application under Rule 129 of Civil Rules of Practice r/w.Sect on 151 of CPC and Section 83 (5) of Waqf Act, 1995 to direct th,: respondent- defendant to produce the AP Gazette No.27-A daterl 12.07.1984, page No.3, Serial No.1532.

5. The suit of the petitioners-plaintiffs came to tre dismissed on 1O.O4.2O19 for default for non-payment of cost ,:f Rs.3,OOO/- payable to the respondent - defendant.

6. Petitioners have filed application under Order IX Rule 9 r/w.Sec[ion 151 of CPC and Section 83 (5) of Wa<1f Act, 1995 on

09.O5.2O19 uide I.A.No.203 of 2Ol9 contencling that the respondent-defendant has not furnished copy of rtre Gazette till

27.O4.2O19, as such they were compelled to apply [c,r the same to the State Archives and the copy was furnishel to them on O2.O5.2O19. Since the copy of the proceeding No.41 lHydlIlI/K/05 dated 01.07.2005 and 29.06.2007 are furnished bv the defendant on O8.05.2019, and the copy of the order in W.P.No.!13065 of 2OO9 are furnished to them on O8.05.2019, as such, t:hey hled the petition to produce the Gazette by the respondent rlefendant along with chief aflrdavit and also with a separate applical.ion to receive the documents and prayed to restore the surt which ivas dismissed for defauit on 1O,O4.2O19. i ?-- .r/ -:) BRMR,J CRP.No.477 oI 2022

7. Respondent-defendant has not filed his counter for restoration application but the learned rribunal inspite of the same has dismissed I.A.No.2O3 of 20t9 on29.tl,.2O2t.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that [he order and decree dated 29.71.2O21 inI.A.No.2O3 of 20t9 in O.S.No.274 of 2076 is against the principles of natural justice, contrary to law and ignoring the provisions of Order IX Rule 9 of CpC. Learned Tribunal erroneously heid that the petitioners are intending to drag the proceedings and instead of allowing the application has dismissed the same. Learned Tribunal failed to consider that serious title dispute is involved in the suit, which can only be adjudicated on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. The order is perverse and the same is liable to be set aside.

9. Power of the Higlr Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India is supervisory ald is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals undpr its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner (See: K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan _ 2025 SCC Online SC 985) \ BRMR,J CRP.No-477 of 2022 .\ 4 10- Learned Tribunal while dismissing the application for restoration of suit observed paragraph Nos.8 and 9 .'rzhich reads as under: "8. As seen from the records, the Tribunal framed the issues in the suit as long back as on O9-O1=2O12. Thereafte| innumerable opportunities were given to the petitioners to lead thtir evidence- In spite of the same the petitioners did not proceed with the matter- As rightty submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for rlspondent, it is al*,ays for the plaintiffs to establish their case- The petitioners were unable to produce the certilied copy of the Gazette withi:1 the sparl of (10) years. On 2O-O3-2O19 this Tribunal permitted thr) petitioners to file all the examination-in-chief and also documents by 1tl O4 2019 by imposing costs of Rs.l,oo0/- to the drfendant rvith i "ider that on failure the suit stands dismissed. Thus Tribunal passed a speciltc order by imposing costs also- ln these circumstanccs it is expected that the petitioners show progress in the matter. But agzrin on 10 04- 2019 instead of hling the eyidence affidavits of the witnesses in lieu of examination-in-chief, the petitioners filed a petition unrier RuIe 129 Civil Rules of Practice, r/w Section 151 CPC to summon the documents. That petition was returned. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to the order passed by the Tribunal on 10-4-2019 rrt 5 OO p-m: 'This is a matter of 2010 and in spite of passing conditional orders on 27 2-2019 and in spite of irnposing costs of Rs.1OOO / on 2O-3-2Q19 ivith a condition to file all the chief affidawits on behalf of the plaintiffs reither the ptaintiffs filed chief alfidavit nor paid the costs of Rs. 1000/ - to the other side- Virtually in this case ttrere is no progress since the date of framing of the issut:s on 9- 1 2012. Therefore there is no mearing in adjourning the suit further and on the last occasion i.e, on 20 3-2019 lhis Court made a self-operative default order fi ilLlre to hle the chief affidavits by the plaintifls leads to the dismissal of the suit. On the other hand, during the call work the learned counsel for the plaintiffs hled one I.A ., under Rul: 129 of the Civil Rules of Practice read with Section 15t of the CPC rvirh a prayer to direct the respondent/Wacf Board to produce the A.P.Gazette No.27-A, dt.12-7-198.1 in the it is interests ofjustice and the said I.A. was returned €s not maintainable as the plaintiffs are seeking prcd:ction oI the public document of the year 1984 aj]d in lact the plaintiffs are at liberty to get the certified cop-_\ f,f the public clocument as well right from 2010( year of fiting of the suit). Thus this is another attempt made L,y the plaintiffs to drag on the proceedings to an it d--finite period. Therefore, the suit stands dismissed for cefault and non prosecution with costs of Rs-3,000/- palable b5. tlr plarntilfs to the defendant." 5 BRMR,J CRP.No.477 ot 2022

9. The order dt.1O 04 2O19 is very specific and exhaustive that several opportunities were given to the petitioners to proceed with their case. But they never tried to proceed with the case. Finally the Tribunal dismissed the suit for default for non prosecution with costs of Rs.3,000/-. Normally the petition filed under Order IX Rute 9 CpC witt be decided liberally, but the circumstances stated above only show that the petitioners \.r'ere not at atl serious and diligent to proceed with the suit. The petitioners only intend to drag on the proceedings. A perusal of the plaint shows that the l" petitioner's age is about 53 years as on the on the date of liling of the suit. The circumstances mentioned in the affidavit hled in support of the petitioner are not at all sufficient to restore the suit as prayed for. No sullicient cause is shown to restore the suit. Accordingly, we hold that here are no sufficient grounds to restore the suit as prayed for."

11. On perusal of the above said order, petitioners - plaintiffs were imposed costs of Rs.3,O00/- payable to the respondent - defendant. The condition imposed therein is not complied, thereby learned Tribunal dismissed the application vide I.A.No.2O3 of 2Ol9 holding that the petitioners are dragging on the case on one pretext or the other.

12. As the title dispute is involved in the suit, which has to be adjudicated effectively by leading evidence by both the parties coupled with documentary evidence. The learned Tribunal ought to have taken a lenient view and ought to have restored the suit.

13. Petitioners have made out a case to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Tribunal in the above said l.A. as the suit involves title dispute between the parties. Hence, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from perversity and irregularity and requires interference of this Court subject to payment of cost of Rs.S,OOO/- (Rupees hve thousands I i \. \ -+-+fr 6 BRMR,J CRP.Nct.477 of 2022 only) payable bv the petitioners to the Legal Serrices Authority, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. -

14. In vieu, o[ thc reasons above, this Civil Revision petition is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.S,OOO/ - (Rupees five thousands onlv) payable by the petitioners to thr: l-ega I Services Authority, Ciry Oivil Courts, Hyderabad, within a p:riod of two (02) weeks from ttre date of receipt of a copy of this order.

15. According[5, the Civil Revision petition is rllowed without Interim orde rs if any stard vacated. Miscella;rcous petition/ s shall stand clost:d //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.PRATHIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR6SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Telangana State Wakf Tribunal at Hydeiabad. 2 One CC to SRI MIRZA NTSAR AHMED BA|G Advocate IOPUC] 3. Two CD Copies M NVI]/PSL HlGH COURT DATED:2511112025 ORDER CRP.No.477 of 2022 \\.\L J JA / llL ! ?16 6) Y sP,:. ( ,J \Jl)l ,<,, i*\\ ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION A t?ttr \ \