V SADAK PEER Vs. TAMIL NADU WAKF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed these Civil Revision petitions as against the orders dated 29.06.2009 in O.A.No.17 of 2008 and 11.06.2009 in O.A.No.22 of 2008 passed by the learned I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai (Wakf Tribunal).

(2.) THE Wakf Tribunal while passing order in O.A.No.17 of 2008 dated 29.06.2009 has among other things opined that 'the respondent inspite of the specific allegations by the other side has not adduced any contra evidence. It is only R1 who had chosen to contest the case. R2 and R3 have remained exparte inspite of service of notice. THErefore it is apparent that R2 and R3 are not refuting the claim of the petitioner. THE R1 inspite of filing a counter denying the claim of the petitioner/appellant has not chosen to produce the copy of paper publication by which the applications called for and the relevant reasons for appointing of Rs.3 as the 5th member and the fact that the appointment was within the time fixed by the Honourable High Court. THErefore the appellant has made out a case in his favour, etc., and as such resultantly allowed the application.

(3.) CONTENDING further, the learned counsel for the petitioner takes a plea that the learned Wakf Tribunal as an Appellate Authority can never mark exhibits without there being an application filed thereto and further the Honourable High Court has never directed what kind of procedure is to be followed in regard to the appointment of the fifth member of the Committee and therefore the observation of the Tribunal in O.A.No.17 of 2008 dated 29.06.2009 to the effect that the first respondent inspite of filing a counter denying the claim of the petitioner/applicant has not chosen to produce the copy of the paper publication by which the applications called for and the relevant reasons for appointing the third respondent as the fifth member and the factum that the appointment was within the time fixed by the Honourable High Court and further observation in O.A.No.22 of 2008 dated 11.06.2009 to the effect that in the absence of filing any document in proof of effecting publication calling for applications, it has to be taken the first respondent failed to follow the procedure as per the scheme decree in C.S.No.56 of 1956 are not correct in the eye of law.