AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The revision is preferred against an order of temporary
mandatory injunction granted under Order 39 Rule 1 of CPC.
The order was passed by the Wakf Tribunal, Kollam in
I.A.No.150/2017 in O.S.12/2017.
2.Parties are referred to in this order as they are shown in the
memorandum put in to seek review.
3.Facts are these : The marriage of the son of the 1st
respondent is proposed to be conducted on 16.4.2017. The 1st
respondent approached the petitioners for a document which
the parties call ''reply letter''. It seems it is a certificate of no
objection or a consent letter to be issued by the jama-ath of
the bridegroom to the jama-ath of the bride. The petitioners
refused to issue the document on the ground that Rs.14,200/-
was due to the jama-ath from the 1st respondent.
4.The petitioners filed objection against grant of temporary
mandatory injunction.
5.Exts A1 to A6 and B1 to B10 were marked by the tribunal for
the purpose of disposing of the application. The tribunal
allowed the application directing the petitioners to issue
''reply letter'' to the 1st respondent on receipt of Rs.4,200/-.
6.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned
counsel for the 1st respondent and also the learned counsel
for the 2nd respondent.
7.The 1st respondent is a member of the 1st petitioner jama-ath.
The marriage of the former is proposed to be conducted on
16.4.2017. According to the petitioners, the 1st respondent
and his companions obstructed the auction of livestock and
stole four goats and 17 fowls. It is alleged that a criminal case
is registered against them. It is also alleged that the general
body of the jama-ath held on 3.4.2015 appointed an expert
committee to find facts and assess damages, if any. It is also
contended that the expert committee found the 1st
respondent and his associates guilty of steeling the livestock
and the committee fixed the total liability at Rs.60,000/-, to
be shared at the rate of Rs.10,000/- by each person.
8.The petitioners are ready to issue the certificate or consent
letter if Rs.14,200/- is remitted by the 1st respondent. There is
no other objection for the petitioners. That means what
stands in the way of issuance of the certificate or consent
letter is money. Out of Rs.14,200/- demanded by the
petitioners, Rs.10,000/- is a disputed amount. The petitioners
cannot take advantage of the situation to collect the disputed
amount. Religious institutions are expected to be more large-
minded. That perhaps is the reason why the 2nd respondent
(Wakf Board) incorporated guideline no:21 in Ext A6
guidelines. Guideline No.21 is that jama-aths shall refrain
from taking action in the nature of punishment in the matter
of marriage, engagement, burial et cetera. The spirit of the
said guideline should be kept in mind by every jama-ath. The
petitioners have no go but to follow the guidelines issued by
the Wakf Board.
9.The Wakf Tribunal did not do any mistake when it directed to
issue the certificate or consent letter on receipt of the
amount of Rs.4,200/- which was the arrear of subscription.
The order of the Wakf Tribunal is neither illegal nor perverse.
Therefore there is little scope for interference. The revision is
devoid of merit. The same deserves only a dismissal.
10.Dismissed.