PERIAMMA Vs. KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKFS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since these petitions under Section 83 (9) of the WAKF Act, 1995 arise from orders passed by the WAKF Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) in the same proceeding, they were heard analogously and are decided by this common order.

(2.) In CRP No.48/2018, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 06.01.2018 by which application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint has been rejected as barred by limitation. In CRP No.49/2018, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 21.11.2017 passed by the WAKF Tribunal, by which the application filed by the petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short) for recalling Defendant Witness No.1 for cross-examination has been dismissed. In CRP No.353/2018, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 31.3.2018, by which application filed by the petitioner for referring the documents Exhibits D3, D9, D10 and D16 to obtain an expert opinion by referring the same to Forensic Science Laboratory, Madivala, Bengaluru has been rejected.

(3.) Facts giving rise to filing of these petitions briefly stated are that the petitioner filed a suit against the respondents seeking the relief of declaration of title in respect of 'C' Schedule properties as well as declaration that Certificate of Registration issued by defendant No.1 dated 23.06.1980 to the extent of 165x700 feet published in the official gazette is null and void. The petitioner has also sought for the relief of permanent injunction against the respondents restraining them from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the suit property. The suit filed by the petitioner was remanded by this Court in the year 2009. The evidence of the petitioner after remanding was closed in the year 2009. Thereafter, the defendants for a period of four years took adjournments and even till 2017 did not conclude their evidence. On 17.12.2017, the matter was posted for cross- examination of Defendant Witness No.2. The petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code seeking permission of the Trial Court for amendment of the plaint, by which relief of declaration that corrigendum to the registration certificate issued by defendant No.1 dated 07.05.1990 is illegal and void and is not binding on the plaintiff. The Tribunal, by an order dated 06.01.2018, rejected the aforesaid application on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. The aforesaid matter is subject matter of challenge in CRP No.48/2018.