- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46244 CRP No. 636 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 636 OF 2025 (RES) BETWEEN: SRI KHIZARULLA KHAN S/O LATE HABEEB ULLA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A TANJAVOOR MOHALL, MADDUR ROAD, KUNIGAL TOWN, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572130 …PETITIONER (BY SRI MAHAMMED TAHIR A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF, NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052. 2. CENTRAL MAJLIS-E-SHOORA, JAMIA MASJID, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, HAZRATH HAKIM ALI SHAH COMPLEX, B.M. ROAD, KUNIGAL TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130 3. SRI. SYED HAFEEZ PASHA, S/O ABDUL RAUF, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A KOTE STREET(KHILA), KUNIGAL TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130 …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46244 CRP No. 636 of 2025 (BY SRI A.MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3; VIDE ORDER DATED 28.10.2025, SRI M.ANAND KUMAR, ADVOCATE SRI P.S.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO.31/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, KARNATAKA WAQF TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE DN. BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed memo, which reads as under: “The Petitioner humbly submits as follows: In view of the amendment of Section 83(9) of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, the Appeal lies against the order of the tribunal. Therefore, the Petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the captioned petition with liberty to file Appeal and condone the delay spent on prosecuting the captioned petition for the purpose of filing appeal under Section 83(9) of the Act, in the interest of justice and equity.” - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46244 CRP No. 636 of 2025 2. Placing the memo on record, revision petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. 3. Time spent before this Court in this revision shall be excluded in the intended appeal as is contemplated under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 4. Office is directed to return the certified copies after keeping the photo copies. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR