IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY %
BEFORE % A
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE % F
% CIVIL REVISION PETWIIJNV No-555 %%o§*%%%2_QQ;z
BETWEEN
Sri. Kama} Pasha,
Aged about 61 ytzars, =
S/0 Late Bapu Saheb, _
R/at 21001/1, Bridge Mchalla; _ _ _
HunsurTown--5'?'.1106v..~« _ ' :Petitioner
(By
AND:
1. Arakesn4--Samit'hi_L;~ ._ '
Jamie fviaszid; _ 4'
Bridge M"0h_alla,.=
'1'own,._ _
DiStI'iCt--571I06.
»A =R§p.by.its_'P1fcsident
' " .Abdu1
A 2. A}ii7aVx'r1;*arai;é1:l%;:$:':.A§oa.:'d ofwakf,
Régy B35 ita Secretary,
x No. 16.,"Cunni:1ghan1 Rsad,
» V B'amga1ore»56O O01. : Respondents
(:2?-1 served)
‘ {By Sri. R.Abdu1 Rcyaz Ifizran and
‘4 Ramathilakafl, Advocate for R-2)
2
This Civil Revision Petition io filed under Section 83(9)
under proviso to section 83(9) of WAKF Act, 1999. __ against
tho judgment and order dated 22/9/2007 _4 on
I.A.No.8 in S.C.No.3/ 2006 on the file of the Proéidigzngi
Kamataka WAKE’ Tribunal, Mysore
dismissing ms filed U/o 6 Rule 17oo¢roPo«. , o
This petition coming on for
made the following: ‘ ‘ V ‘ ‘ V’
This civil by the Plaintifi’
chaflcngng passed by the
Kamataka division, Mysore in
O.S.Nu.§ Tribunal dismissed IA.
No.8 fi1’cd mmdef “Ru1c–17 CPC., by the Plaintiff
prayigig tofamoend the piaint.
‘L have heard the learned counsel on both sides and
on record. For the purposo of convenience,
H VV _ the jj§iaI’ti;r§S be mferzned to, according to their rank before the
3
3. The Plaintifi’-petitioner herein filed a suit seeking
mandatory injunction, then thereafter, an appficatien. under
Order-6, Rule 17 C90 was fled seeking eneeeee:e:1:0e.eeeew
eenvert the suit to one for declaration. a s¥e1_it_A
injunction, the defendant
appeared through counsei,
02.07.2001 denying the Specific
averment was made the euit schedule
property was _ under a gazette
it was brought tn
the netiee schedule property has
been The Plaintiff has not
taken ax1’j:”e«~3:_i3epvet0Véee1§:e;?i”emendn1ent of the plamt within a
perijaji bee year U] S. 6(1) of the Karnataka Wakf
which prescribes limitation period of one
__ the application has been filed after
–Vino1;€ii;f.1s§;vt:.e”z{i;e1a3I of six and half (6 ea ) years i.e., on
K . As such, the trial Court was justified in
the application filed by the Plaintiff for amenememz.
0′ re-appreciation of the material on record, E do not find any
error or iilcgality in the order passed by the court V-hglow and
consequently, the revision petition is liable to be ” 2,