Telangana High Court
CRP/777/2022 of Shaik Saleem Vs Syed Shah Ali Akbar Nizamuddin Hussaini on 29 December 2022
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY , THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEI/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 777 OF 2022 Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia against/aggrieved by the Order
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE [STATE ][OF ][TELANGANA]AT HYDERABADTHURSDAY ,THE TWENTY NINTH [DAY ][OF ][DECEI/BER]TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE [P.SREE ][SUDHA]
CIVIL REVISION PETITION [NO: ][777 ][OF 2022]
Petition under Article 227 of [lhe ][Constitution ][of ][lndia against/aggrieved ][by]the Order dt- 22-12-2021 in l.A. No. [394 ][oI ][2021 ][in O.S. ][No. ][44 of 2018 on ][the]file of Learned Telangana State [Wakf Tribunal, ][Hyderabad]
Betwee n:
Shaik Saleem, s/o Late Shaik [Rasool, aged about ][38 ][years, Occ- Private ][Service,]RIO H. No. 5-6-76112, [Sevak Nagar, Nampally, ][Hyderabad]
...Revision Petitioner
AND
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Syed Shah Ali Akbar Nizamuddin [Hussaini, s/o Late ][S-yed ][Shah Qutubuddin]Hi-rssaini, aged abou! 61 [years, Occ- Mutawalli and Member ][of ][Telangana]State WakfBoard, [Rl/O ]Dargah [Hazrath Shah Khamoosh Sahab ][Rh.,]Nampally, HyderabadHi-rssaini, aged abou! 61 [years, Occ- Mutawalli and Member ][of ][Telangana]State WakfBoard, [Rl/O ]Dargah [Hazrath Shah Khamoosh Sahab ][Rh.,]Nampally, Hyderabad
2. Telangana State Wakf Board, [(FormerlV ][A ][P. ][S!91e ][Wakf Board) ][Rep.,lcy ][its]Chief Executive Officer, Office [at Haj ][House ][Building, Razzak ][Manzil, ][Opp ][,]Public Garden, Nampally, Hyderabad.Chief Executive Officer, Office [at Haj ][House ][Building, Razzak ][Manzil, ][Opp ][,]Public Garden, Nampally, Hyderabad.
3. The District Collector, Hyderabad [Dist., Office ][at ][Station Road, ][Nampally.]Hyderabad.Hyderabad.
4. The Chief Commissioner of [Land Administration, Telangana ][State ][(Formerly]Andhra Pradesh), Office at [Station Road, Nampally, ][Hyderabad]Andhra Pradesh), Office at [Station Road, Nampally, ][Hyderabad]
...Respondents
(Respondents No.2 to 4 are not nec€ssary [parties. ][to this ][Revision ][Petition ][as]ihuy' are made not necessary [parties ][to ][the ][petition ][filed ][before ][the ][Court]Below)
lA NO: [1 OF ][2022]
petition under section [151 ][cpc ][praying ][that ][in ][the ][circumstances ][stated]in the affidavit [ritea ][tnerewlirr ][ti"il'g-n ][b;-';;'y ][be ][pleased ][to ][stav all ][further]oi zora [p"niing ][on ][the ][fire ][of ][the ][rearned]oroceedings [of ][Suit ][in ][c:; ][il;; ]tlir"sr"r" [strte ][wakf ][rribunal' ][Hyderabad']
Counsel [for ][the ][Petitioners: ][M/s' VIKAR ][AHMED SIDDIQUI]
Counsel [for the Respondent No'1: ][SRI ][MD ][ABDUL ][MATEEN QURESHI]
The Court [made the ][following: ][OROER]
?HE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHACIVIL REVISION PETITION No.777 of2022QBLEIT
This Civil Rcvision l,ciition is filed against the order of thetrial Court in I.A.No.394 of 2021 in O.S.No.44 of 2018.trial Court in I.A.No.394 of 2021 in O.S.No.44 of 2018.
2, I,laintiff filed suir in O.S.No.44 of 2O1g for declaration andmandatory injunction against the first defendant, TelanganaState Waqf Board, the District Collector and the ChiefCommissioner ol Land Administration. I)uring the penrlcncy ofthe proceedings, first defcndant in thc suit hled I.A.No.394 of2O2l Lo set aside the forfeiturc order dated 23.Og.2OIg againsthim and to permit him to lile Writtcn Statement. The trial Courtafter hearing arguments of both sides allowed thc application oncondition to dcposit cost of Ils. 10,OO0/_ to the District kgalServices Authority, I lyderbad and also to file Written Statementon or before 21.01.2022. Aggrieved by the said order, presentCivil Revision petition is preferred by the plaintiff on24.03.2022.
3 l'laintiff mainly contendcd thar- the reason stated bydcfendant No. i in I.A.No.il94 ot 2O2I bcforc the trial Court is
that [he ][was ][out of ][station ][ancl \\ras ][unable ][to ][file ][his ][Written]Statement [within tlmc, ][but ][he ][liled ][Exs R ][2 ][& ][R'3 ][(u'hich ][are]markedwithconsent)provethathervasresidingatl{yderabadduring [the relevant ][period and as ][such ][thc ][plea ][thal ][he is ][out ][of]station [is ][false ][and ][created' He ][further ][stated ][that ][the ][trial]Courtobservedthatthedelayistobecondonedinviewofthepandemic [during ][the ][relevant ][period' ][but ][the forfeiture order ][for]not filing [the ][Written ][Statement ][is ][passed ][on ][23 ][08'2019 ][and]the first [lock ][down ][in ][India ][was imposed on ][23 ]['O3 ]['2O2O ][i'e' ][after]seven [months ][from ][the ][date ][of ][the said order' ][as ][such ][the]reasoning [of ][the ][trial ][Court ][is ][not ][proper ][and ][therefore]requested [this ][Court to ][set aside the ][Order ][of the ][trial ][Court ][in]LA.No.394 [of ][2O2l ][in ][O'S No'44 of 2018']
4Heard [argumcnts ][of ][both ][sidcs']
5. The learned [Counsel for ][the ][defendant No'1 ][stated ][that ][as]the [direction ][of the ][trial ][Court' he ][not ][only filed ][Written]per Statement [but ][also ][paid ][costs ][within ][time ][much after filing ][of]the Written [Statement ][this ][C'R'P ][is ][filed' ][as such ][this ][Civil]Revision [Petition itself is ][not ][maintainablc']
6. [{c relied upon thc Judgmcnt of the Hon'ble SupremcCourt passed in thc casc of Kailosh Vs. No,nhku and Ors [rin]which it was held that the time limit of 90 days as prescribed bythe proviso to Order VIII rule l of C.P.C is mandatory ordirectory and thc powcr of Court to extcnd time for filing theWritten Statement beyond the time schedule is not completelytaken away. I{e also relied upon the order passed by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the casc of Bharat Kalra Vs. Raj KishanChabra, in which it u,as held that the delay in filing the WrittenStatement could very wcll be compensated with costs butdenying the bcnefit of filing of the Written Statement isunreasonable.
7. Admittedly, suit is filed for declaration, in fact there wasmuch delay in filing the Written Statement and therefore thetrial Court considering the delay, impoied costs of Rs. 10,OOO/-but to give an opportunity to the l"t defendant to contest thematter and to dispose of the suit on merits gave an opportunityto file the Written Statement and accordingly he filed WrittenStatement and also paid costs. Thcrefore, this Civil RevisionPetition has no merits and is liablc to be set aside.
' [(zoos) ,t ][scc ][+go]
.t
In the resuit, the Civil Rcvision l)ctition is dismissed.There shall be no order as to costs.Miscellaneous petitions pending, il- any, shall stand closed.
Sd/- K. AMMAJI///TRUE COPY// [ASSISTANIREG]IIIAR].,.,1 1 1sEcTtoN -,,. OFFTCER
To.
1. The Leamed Telangana State Wakf Tribunal at Hyderabad.
2. One CC to SRt. VTKAR AHMED SlDDleUt , Advocate IOPUCI, Advocate IOPUCI
3. One CC to SRt. MD ABDUL MATEEN QURESH|, Advocate [OPUC]QURESH|, Advocate [OPUC]
4. Two CD CopiesTwo CD Copies
kamb..--
HIGH COURT
DATED:2911212022
1ti [F* ]s14i.RLlORDER'\<oL)3 0 JAft?t?3,CRP.No.777 ot 2022t.-t DISMISSING TIIE C.R.P.
CrQiv;