KUNJEEN MUSLIAR Vs. MEPPARA JUMA MASJID COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter relates to a Juma -ath. The plaintiff was its president at one point of time. He allegedly spent some fund for conducting a suit in a court. Later, it appears that there was some consensus and that the suit was thereafter not represented before the proper court and prosecuted. The Juma -ath wanted him to pay the monies spent for that suit. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit from which this revision arises. That is a suit for injunction against enforcement of the Juma -ath's decision. It appears that the plaintiff was not diligent in prosecuting that suit though it is also to be noted that both the parties wanted the suit to be live. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents. Technically, unless the suit is back on file, the parties cannot settle that litigation. Otherwise, we see no reason for keeping this litigation live between the parties.

(2.) IN matters like the one in hand, it is the interest of the community at large that such litigations are never permitted to survive. The matter appears to be so trivial that the elders in the Juma -ath ought to have seen that the matter is given a quietus without the intervention of the Wakf Tribunal. To enable the aforesaid process, we think it appropriate that the matter is restored. We are satisfied that the appellant had explained to the court below the reason why he was late on the day on which the suit was dismissed. He states that he who was undergoing some treatment was late in reaching the court and the case was called out twice and dismissed. The only other reason the court below attributes is that on an earlier round also he was absent. Prior conduct is no ground to refuse restoration on a later default. This is well settled. On the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are inclined to think that sufficient cause was shown for restoration of the suit.