High CourtsDivision Bench(2023) 03 KL CK 0082

Sayed Hussain Hydrose Thangal vs K.J.Paul

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 8 March 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J · Mohammed Nias C. P., J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Original Petition (Wakf)No.8 Of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 352 words

Mohammed Nias.C.P. J.

1.

This Original Petition is filed with a prayer to set aside Ext.P9 and P10 orders passed by the Wakf Tribunal. Kozhikode, by which IA Nos. 925 of 2022 and 926 of 2022, applications filed to set aside the ex-parte decree passed against the third respondent with an application for condoning the delay in filing the said application.

2.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he did not get an opportunity to oppose the claims made by the third respondent in his application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The reasons set forth in the said application were factually wrong. In such a case, going by the judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, the finding in the impugned orders that there was sufficient cause for the third respondent for not appearing in the court is unsustainable. Despite the fact that no sufficient cause was made out by the third respondent, the Tribunal has erroneously allowed both applications and set aside the exparte decree passed.

3.

We note that by the impugned order, the application to condone the delay of 802 days to set aside the ex-parte decree was allowed on a cost of Rs.2,000/- noticing that no counter was filed on behalf of the third respondent. The same reason is given for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Though there is some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there were negligence and laches on the part of the third respondent in not appearing before the court below that led to the passing of an ex-parte decree, We assume that the same was taken into account by the Tribunal as the applications were allowed on payment of costs. After all, every court must endeavour to decide the cases on merits after hearing both sides, and this could have been the Tribunal's approach while passing the orders impugned. We do not think that the discretion exercised by the Tribunal is entirely wrong in allowing the applications so as to warrant interference in this Original petition.

The original petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.