K BHASKAR REDDY Vs. AHMED WASEEMUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent filed O.S. No. 56 of 2007 before the A.P. State Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad, against the petitioners and the 2nd respondent for the relief of recovery of possession of an extent of Ac. 1.31 guntas of land in survey No. 210 of Ibrahim Bagh, Golkonda Mandal, Hyderabad, from the petitioners and for delivery of the same to respondent No. 2 and for perpetual injunction, against the petitioners herein. On receipt of summons in the suit, the petitioners entered appearance and filed a written statement. However, the Tribunal decreed the suit through judgment dated 31.10.2009. The petitioners filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., with a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree. Since there was a delay of 240 days in filing that application, I.A. No. 505 of 2010 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was pleaded that the 1st respondent herein remained absent, so much so his evidence was forfeited and being under the impression that the suit would be dismissed for default, the petitioners did not take further steps and the Tribunal, however, decreed the suit on the basis of evidence of DW. 1. It was also mentioned that one of the petitioners, who was looking after litigation, has fallen ill, and the application could not be filed within time. The Tribunal dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 22.11.2011. Hence, this revision. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

(2.) The Tribunal entertained a doubt as to whether the decree passed by it was ex parte in nature or not and whether an application filed under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. can be maintained. A perusal of the judgment rendered by it makes an interesting reading. The 1st respondent, the sole plaintiff, did not prosecute the suit after one stage. That should have resulted in dismissal of the suit for default. However, the Tribunal has adopted a strange method of forfeiting the evidence of the sole plaintiff and proceeding with the suit. Another curious aspect is that the suit was decreed solely on the basis of the deposition of DW. 1 examined on behalf of the 2nd respondent i.e. 6th defendant in the suit. Hence, the decree deserves to be treated as an ex parte one.

(3.) Further, left to himself, the plaintiff did not claim any relief to him. He wanted recovery of possession of the suit land form the petitioners, for delivery of the same to the 6th defendant. It is just ununderstandable as to how a suit of that nature is entertained.