- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44115 CRP No. 176 of 2019 C/W CRP No. 175 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 176 OF 2019 C/W CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 175 OF 2019 IN CRP No. 176/2019 BETWEEN: SRI. S.A. GANGADHARAPPA S/O ANJANAPPA, AGE 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.126, HASIKARAGADA MANTAPA ROAD, KENGERI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 060. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.O. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKFS "DARUL AWKAF", NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER AND ADDITIONAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKFS, DARUL AWKAF, NO.6, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44115 CRP No. 176 of 2019 C/W CRP No. 175 of 2019 CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052. 3. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE JAMIYA MOSQUE, BANGALORE-MYSORE ROAD, KENGERI, BANGALORE(U) - 560 060 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SYED SUHAIL ALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. MOHAMMED TIPPU SULTHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS CRP IS FILED U/S.83(9) OF THE WAKFS ACT 1995 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.10/2011 ON ISSUE NO.9 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE HOLDING CONCURRENT CHARGE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, KARNATAKA WAKF TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE DIVISION, BANGALORE AFFIRMATIVELY ANSWERING ISSUE NO 9 AND DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED U/S.54(4) OF WAKFS ACT 1995 AND ORDER VII RULE 1 OF CPC. IN CRP NO. 175/2019 BETWEEN: SRI. SUBRAMANI S/O CHINNAPPA AGE: 55 YEARS R/A HOUSE BEARING KHATHA NO.264, ANNAMMA DEVI TEMPLE ROAD KENGERI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 060 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.O. CHANDRA SHEKAR, ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44115 CRP No. 176 of 2019 C/W CRP No. 175 of 2019 AND: 1. KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKFS DARUL AWKAR, NO.6 CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU - 560 052 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER AND ADDITIONAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKFS DARUL AWKAR, NO.6 CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU - 560 052. 3. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE JAMIYA MOSQUE BENGALURU-MYSORE ROAD KENGERI, BENGALURU (U) - 560 060 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SYED SUHAIL ALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. MOHAMMED TIPPU SULTHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.83(9) OF THE WAKFS ACT 1995 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2012 PASSED ON ISSUE NO.9 IN OS NO.9/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, HOLDING CONCURRENT CHARGE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, KARNATAKA WAKF TRIBUNAL BANGALORE DIVISION, BANGALORE AFFIRMATIVELY ANSWERING THE ISSUE NO.9. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44115 CRP No. 176 of 2019 C/W CRP No. 175 of 2019 THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and respondent. 2. In both these suits, revision petitioners are the plaintiffs. They had filed an application under Section 54(4) of the Wakfs Act, 1995 with the following prayer: IN O.S.No.10/2011 i. To pass judgment and decree declaring that the order dated 30.05.2011 passed by the second defendant in enquiry proceedings No.ENQ/5/BNU/2003 is null and void as against the suit schedule property belonging to the plaintiff and the same is not binding on the suit schedule property. ii. To pass judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3, their agents etc/ enforcing the order dated 30.05.2011 passed by the second defendant in enquiry proceedings No.ENQ/5/BNU/2003 as against the suit schedule property belonging to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44115 CRP No. 176 of 2019 C/W CRP No. 175 of 2019 the plaintiff or interfering into the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule property. iii. To grant such other reliefs. IN O.S.No.9/2011 i. To pass judgment and decree declaring that the order dated 30.05.2011 passed by the 2nd defendant in enquiry proceedings No.ENQ/5/BNU/2003 is null and void as against the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties belonging to the plaintiff and the same is not binding on the schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties. ii. To pass judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3, their agents etc. from enforcing the order dated 30.05.2011 passed by the 2nd defendant in enquiry proceedings No.ENQ/5/BNU/2003 as against the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties belonging to the plaintiff or interfering into the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties. iii. To grant such other reliefs. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44115 CRP No. 176 of 2019 C/W CRP No. 175 of 2019 3. Defendant No.1 being the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs and defendant No.2 being the Enquiry Officer of Karnataka State Board of Wakfs, entered appearance and filed written statement inter alia contending that suit is barred by time. 4. Based on the rival contentions, Wakf Tribunal raised necessary issues. Issue No.9 reads as under: “Whether the defendant proves that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation as alleged in para 2 of the written statement?” 5. Learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties on issue No.9 as the application filed by the plaintiff was per se not maintainable by way of mathematical precision and dismissed the suit while answering issue No.9 in the affirmative and dismissed the suit inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.9 to 12 as under: “9. The undisputed facts of the case are that the second defendant (The Enquiry Officer & Additional - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44115 CRP No. 176 of 2019 C/W CRP No. 175 of 2019 Chief Executive Officer) by exercising the powers under Sec.54(3) of Wakf Act 1995 initiated the enquiry proceedings against the plaintiff and others in Enquiry Case No.ENQ/5/BNU/2003 and passed an order dated 30.5.2011 for removal of encroachment from the wakf property. 10. In my view, the subject matter of this suit is fairly covered under Sec.54 of Wakf Act, 1995. The present suit is also filed before this Tribunal by invoking the provisions under Sec.54(4) of the Wakf Act 1995. In my view, the defendants 1 and 2 are justified in holding that the suit is barred by limitation. According to Rule 81(3) of Karnataka Wakf Rules 1997 any person aggrieved by the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer under Sec.54(3) may institute a suit before the Wakf Tribunal under Sec.54(4) within 60 days from the date of the said order. 11. The stipulated period of time fixed to file the suit by invoking Sec.54(4) of the Wakf Act 1995 is 60 days. The Chief Enquiry Officer has passed an order dated 30.5.2011. There is admitted delay of 3 months 15 days in filing the present suit. The learned advocate for the plaintiff during the trial of the suit has issued a notice under Sec.89 of Wakf Act 1995 to the defendants. In my view, the provisions of Sec.89 of Wakf Act 1995 is not applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, issue notice is of no consequence. 12. The learned advocate for the plaintiff has filed an application (I.A.No.1) under Sec.5 of Limitation Act dated 15.11.2011 to condone the delay of 3 months and 15 days in filing the present suit. In my view, the provisions of Sec.5 of Limitation Act is not applicable to suits (original cause of action) and it is only applicable to the appeals or any application other than the suits. Sec.5 of Limitation - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44115 CRP No. 176 of 2019 C/W CRP No. 175 of 2019 Act is not applicable to the original suits (original cause of action). Hence, question of condoning the delay of 3 months and 15 days (by invoking Sec.5 of Limitation Act) in filing the present suit does not arise. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER Issue No.9 is answered in the affirmative. It is held that the suit is barred by time. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act dated 15.11.2011 is dismissed. The suit is dismissed with costs ( as barred by time).” 6. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs are before this Court, in these revision petitions on the following common grounds: The Wakf Tribunal grossly erred in holding Issue No.9 in the affirmative and giving a finding that the suit is barred by limitation. The Wakf Tribunal erred is not noticing that the original suit under section 54(4) of The Wakf Act has to be filed only after compliance of issue of sixty days notice to the Wakf Board as contemplated under section 89 of the Wakf Act. It is humbly submitted that such being the position a Original suit can never be instituted against the Wakf Board within a period of sixty days from the date of the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer as indicated in Rule 82(3) of the Karnataka Wakf Rules 1997. It is submitted that being aggrieved by the order passed by Chief Executive Officer of Karnataka - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44115 CRP No. 176 of 2019 C/W CRP No. 175 of 2019 State Board of Wakf the petitioner has instituted the suit before the Tribunal. In view of the said circumstance the original suit before the Tribunal has to be considered as an appeal against the order passed by Chief Executive Officer of Wakf Board. Hence the provisions of section 5 of The Limitation Act are applicable to the original suit instituted before the tribunal against the Wakf Board. The finding of the Wakf Tribunal that the provisions of section 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable to the suit is erroneous. The Wakf Tribunal erred in holding that the provision of section 89 of the Wakf Act is not applicable to the facts of the case. The Wakf Board being a defendant in the original suit, compliance of issue of sixty days notice is a mandatory requirement as contemplated under Section 89 of The Wakf Act. The Wakf Tribunal erred in not considering the application filed by the petitioner under section 5 of the Limitation Act on merits on the ground and the same is not maintainable. The Wakf Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay in instituting the suit as prayed by the petitioner. The finding of the Tribunal that the suit is barred by limitation is erroneous. The order passed by the Tribunal on issue No.9 is illegal and hence the same is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners while fairly admitting the question of limitation being mixed question of law and facts, tried to distinguish the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44115 CRP No. 176 of 2019 C/W CRP No. 175 of 2019 case of the petitioners by contending that since the application under Section 54(4) of the Wakfs Act, cannot be treated as a original cause of action having regard to the notice period of 60 days and the period fixed for filing the application is one and the same. 8. He also contended that though such applications are tried as a suit before the Wakf Tribunal, embargo cannot be imported for an application filed under Section 54(4) of the Wakfs Act like that of the original suit. Therefore, sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order. 10. Having heard the arguments of the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44115 CRP No. 176 of 2019 C/W CRP No. 175 of 2019 11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that 60 days prior notice is no doubt contemplated before approaching the Wakf Tribunal. 12. But, when the cause arose is the one which assumes importance as to the prior notice. It is only after the non-compliance to the callings of the notice; this application is to be filed within a period of 60 days. 13. Therefore, the fallacy is the argument that is put forth on behalf of the revision petitioners that 60 days time is given for the notice period and 60 days is also given for filing of the application cannot be countenanced in law. 14. Having said so, since the learned Trial Judge has bestowed its best attention not only on the provisions of law but also on the settled principles of law in the decision of this Court as referred to supra and has rightly answered issue No.9 in the affirmative and rightly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs as time - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44115 CRP No. 176 of 2019 C/W CRP No. 175 of 2019 barred which requires no interference in this revisional jurisdiction. 15. Accordingly, following: ORDER Revision petitions are dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51