KHAMAR BEEVI Vs. MEMBER OF CHITTUR MUSLIM JUMAATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner filed O.S.No.283 of 1995 before the Munsiff Court, Chittur, which was transferred to the Waqf Tribunal and re-numbered as W.O.S.No.12 of 2002. The Tribunal decreed the suit partly. C.R.P.Nos.290 of 2008 and 615 of 2008 were filed before this Court by the defendants and plaintiffs respectively. A Division Bench of this Court considered the effect of two other Division Bench judgments and found that the suit was to be filed before the Civil Court and not before the Tribunal. By judgment dated 03.12.2009, the above revision petitions were disposed of setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Waqf Tribunal and directing the Tribunal to transfer all records to the Munsiff Court, Chittur. There was a further direction to the Munsiff Court to dispose of the suit within a period of six months. The suit was to be disposed of by June, 2010.

(2.) The suit is for declaration, mandatory injunction and for fixation of boundary. There are 22 defendants in the suit. The case was included in the list of 05.06.2010 and was posted for evidence. I.A.No.1204 of 2010 seeking adjournment of the case was allowed and the case was posted on 09.06.2010. On 09.06.2010, the suit was dismissed. While so, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1295 of 2010 in C.R.P.No.615 of 2008 seeking a direction to the Munsiff Court to transfer the suit and files to the Mediation Centre, Ernakulam, to explore the possibility of settlement through mediation. On 09.07.2010, when the above I.A. was taken up for hearing, both sides submitted that the suit itself has been dismissed for default and restoration petition is pending consideration. It was submitted that the petition stands posted on 21.10.2010. This Court dismissed the petition seeking reference to Mediation Centre, since the suit itself was not alive. The petitioners had filed I.A.No.1306 of 2010 before the Munsiff Court, praying to restore the suit to file. By order dated 25.09.2010, the trial court dismissed the petition. The trial court had noticed that on 09.06.2010, the counsel for the plaintiffs had submitted that he had no instructions from the plaintiffs. However, the pleading in the petition for restoration was that the counsel for the petitioners had requested for time, stating that I.A.No.1295 of 2010 was pending before this Court. Another reason stated was that the 3 rd plaintiff was laid up due to fever. The trial court took note of the fact that there are several other plaintiffs (13) who could have appeared before the court and given evidence.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.1306 of 2010, the petitioners filed C.M.A.No.131 of 2010 before the District Court, Palakkad. The appellate court by judgment dated 14.07.2014 rejected the appeal and it is against the said judgment, this revision petition is filed.