SYED MOHIDEEN & ANR.
RAMANATHAPURA PERIA MOGALLAM JAMATH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 492 of 2003)
JULY 21, 2010
[MARKANDEY KATJU AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]
2010 (8) SCR 777
The following order of the Court was delivered
The application for substitution is allowed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the
High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 24th January, 2002
passed in C.R.P. No.1430 of 2001.
The facts in detail have been set out in the impugned order and
hence we are not repeating the same here.
Having gone through the impugned order, we noticed from
paragraphs 20 & 21 of the impugned order that the High Court has
only observed that certain points were not considered by the Wakf
Tribunal which should have been taken into consideration. Hence,
the High Court remanded the matter.
We agree with the aforesaid observations of the High Court and
see no reason to interfere with the same. We, however, may make
it clear that in terms of Section 83(5) of the Wakf Act, 1995 the
Wakf Tribunal is deemed to be a civil court and has the samepowers as are exercised by civil court under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit or executing a decree or order.
The civil courts are in turn competent to issue injunctions in terms of
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 C.P.C. Similar orders
can, therefore, be passed by the Wakf Tribunal also in suits that are
legally triable by it if a case for grant of such injunction or direction
is made out by the party concerned. These observations shall not,
however, be understood to mean that we are expressing any
opinion on whether a case for grant of an injunction had been made
out in the matter at hand. All that we wish to clarify is that if the
Wakf Tribunal upon consideration of all the relevant facts and
circumstances comes to the conclusion that a case for grant of
interim injunction has been made out it shall be free to issue any
such injunction. With these observations the appeal is dismissed.
The Tribunal shall take a view uninfluenced by any observations
made in this order or the order impugned before us. No costs.
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Order 39, Rule 2A-Scope of-Disobedience or breach of injunc-tion-Trial court ordered the person guilty to be detained in civil prison-High Court setting aside the order accepting the contention that court cannot detain such (advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2-Interim Injunction-Contractual transaction-Money advanced to second party and third party secured the loan by hypothecation and charge-Notice by lender to the securing party seeking repayment of the (advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Order 39, Rules 1, 2 and 3-Trial court granting interim ex parte injunction order without recording reasons and requiring applicant to perform duties as laid down in proviso to Rule 3-Consequence thereof-Held, injunction or (advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com)
- Section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act= Section 41(h) provides that an injunction cannot be granted when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding. The relief of specific performance is equally efficacious, r (advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com)
- “34. Civil court not to have jurisdiction. – No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and n (advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com)