Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1055 (MAD)

M. Abdullah v. S. Sahul Hameed

2015-02-23

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2015
Judgment 1. Respondents 2, 8, 9, 12 and 13 died. The petitioners have filed a memo dated 21.02.2015 giving up those respondents. The memo is taken on record. 2. Heard both sides. 3. This Civil Revision Petition is against the order dated 07.10.2014 made in I.A.No.317 of 2014 in W.O.P.No.128 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Wakf Tribunal, Pudukottai. The aforesaid I.A was filed by the respondents 1 to 13 seeking to amend the original application namely, W.O.P.No.128 of 2004. The amendment was to insert a paragraph at the end of paragraph III (1)(c) of the petition and also in the prayer portion of the O.P. The same was objected to by the revision petitioners, who were the respondents 1 and 2 in W.O.P.No.128 of 2004. After hearing both sides, the learned Judge allowed the said application. The learned Judge has considered the objection made by the revision petitioners in paragraph 6 of the order dated 07.10.2014 made in I.A.No.317 of 2014 in W.O.P.No.128 of 2004, which is extracted hereunder:- "6) This Court has carefully and meticulously considered and applied its mind to the rival contentions. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking amendment in the main WOP and the same was strongly opposed by the respondent side contending the amendment sought for is not essential and the same would alter the character of the main OP besides the petitioner has to work out his remedy with regard to the prayer in the amendment by filing separate proceedings. This court perused the amendment portion set out in the petition and this Court is of the view that the same is essential and does not alter the basic character of the main OP. The petitioner cannot be driven out to file separate proceedings for seeking remedy sought for in the amendment petition which is also not in the interest of administration of justice. The wrong closure of earlier IA no way bar the petitioner to pursue the remedy in this petition. To put it in the nutshell, this Court does not find any merit in the objections put forth by the respondent side and the same is rejected. In the above circumstances, this Court is inclined to accord the relief sought for in the petition. To put it in the nutshell, this Court does not find any merit in the objections put forth by the respondent side and the same is rejected. In the above circumstances, this Court is inclined to accord the relief sought for in the petition. However, in view of the order of the Hon'ble High Court certain conditions has to be imposed for the speedy disposal of the main WOP which would be set out in the operative portion. For the above reasons and discussions, it is decided that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for in this petition." 4. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the trial is yet to commence. In fact, the revision petitioners obtained an earlier order dated 27.06.2014 in CRP(MD)No.1304 of 2014 directing the Trial Court to dispose of W.O.P.No.128 of 2004 within a period of three months. However, the Trial Court was not able to do so, since this Court had granted interim stay on 15.12.2014 in this revision. 5. Taking into account the fact that the trial is yet to commence, I am of the view that the amendment carried out would not cause any prejudice to the revision petitioners who are the respondents 1 and 2 in W.O.P.No.128 of 2004. Hence, I find no merit in the revision petition. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of W.O.P.No.128 of 2004 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The revision petitioners are entitled to file additional written statement with regard to the amended portion of W.O.P.No.128 of 2004. No costs. M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014 is closed.