Revision Petition Challenging Order Of Waqf Board Is To Be Made In 90 Days As Per High Court Rules: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has held that though there is no specific period fixed for preferring the Revision petition under the Waqf Act, 1995 however, as per provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, petitions to revise the order or proceedings of any court shall be presented to the High Court within a period of ninety days from the date of the order.

A single judge bench of Justice G Basavaraja thus dismissed a petition filed by one Syed Mohammed Hussain who had filed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone delay of 593 days in filing this Revision Petition in assailing the order dated 17th August, 2019 passed by the Presiding Officer, Karnataka Waqf Tribunal, Kalaburagi.

To justify the delay, the petitioner argued that he is an octogenarian suffering from various ailments because of which he cannot travel frequently. Further, there was COVID-19 pandemic during 2020-2022 and considering his age, he was required to be more cautious and was not advised to travel. The medical records of the revision petitioner were enclosed with the application.

The respondent no 3 (Syed Ashraf Raza) argued that the limit prescribed under the Limitation Act to prefer revision before the High Court is only ninety days from the date of the order impugned passed by the Karnataka Waqf Tribunal. Even excluding the COVID-19 pandemic period, there is a delay of 593 days in filing the revision petition, it was argued.

The bench referred to Rule 6 of Chapter-VII of High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959 and said “Though there is no specific period fixed for preferring the Revision Petition under the Waqf Act, 1995, in view of the aforementioned provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, petitions to revise the order or proceedings of any court for which no period of limitation is prescribed by any applicable law, shall be presented to the High Court within a period of ninety days from the date of the order complained of. In computing this period, the provisions of Section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act shall apply.”

Refusing to accept the medical records as a ground to condone the delay the court said, “In all these discharge summaries issued by the aforementioned hospitals, it is stated that, at the time of discharge, the condition of the patient was stable. Therefore, the discharge summaries produced by the petitioner are not sufficient to explain the delay of 593 days in filing the revision petition.”

Further it said “If the petitioner is aged and suffering from age-related ailments, he could have filed the revision petition through his Power of Attorney, but he has not chosen to do so. In this case also, the petitioner has not appointed a power of attorney to prosecute this case. He has given vakalat to the concerned advocate and filed this revision petition. The petitioner has filed application No.20 of 2017 before the Karnataka Waqf Tribunal through his Advocate. Under the given set of circumstances, the advocate who has appeared on behalf of the revision petitioner would have suggested taking steps against the impugned order within the prescribed time. But he has not done so.”

Accordingly it dismissed the petition.

Appearance: Advocates Deshpande G.V, Ananth S Jhagirdhar, Ganesh S Kalaburagi for petitioner.

Advocate Liyaqat Fareed for R1.

Advocate Sayed Javeeda Haq FOR R3.

HCGP Gopalkrishna B Yadav FOR R2.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 157

Case Title: Syed Mohammed Hussain AND The Karnataka State Board of AUQAF & Others

Case No: Civil Revision Petition No .200099 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order