Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Board Of Wakfs ... vs Smt. Syeda Hameeda Jahan & Anr on 24 April, 2017
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
REVIEW PETITION NO.200054/2016
Between:
Karnataka State Board of
Wakf Bangalore, through
Its chief executive officer,
Darul AwKaf No:6 Cunningham Road,
Bangalore-560052.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Mohammed Shamsuddin, Advocate)
And:
1. Smt. Syeda Hameeda Jahan @ Saheba
W/o Syed Khuresheed Khadri,
Age : 55 Years,
Occ : Household,
R/o Village Gulsaram-585202.
Tq.: Shahapur, Dist.Yadgir.
2. Syed Shah Ahmed Hussaini Peeran
S/o Syed Shaha Chanda Hussaini Peeran,
Age 68 Years,
2
Occ : Sajjada & Mutawalli,
R/o Village Gulsaram - 585202.
Tq. Shahapur, Dist. Yadgir.
...Respondents
(By Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande,
Advocate for respondent No.1)
This petition is filed under Section 114 Read with
Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. praying to review the
order dated 05.12.2013 passed in CRP No.2018/2013
and allow the above CRP by setting aside the order
passed in O.S. No.27/2009 by the Wakf Tribunal
Gulbarga.
This petition coming on for orders this day, Court
made the following:
ORDER
Though this review petition is listed for orders, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has contended that this review petition is not maintainable as it is the second review petition against the earlier order dated 05.12.2013. He submits that as against the order 3 passed in O.S.No.27/2009, Civil Revision Petition No.2018/2013 was preferred before this court, the same was dismissed. Being aggrieved by that order, Review Petition No.200008/2014 was preferred. The review petition was disposed of by stating that there was no scope for interference in the order passed in CRP No.2018/2013. He further submits that thereafter Special Leave Petition No.24941/2014 was preferred by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed by order dated 19.09.2016. Thereafter this review petition assailing the order dated 05.12.2013 has been filed. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that this review petition may be dismissed on the ground of maintainability.
2. With regard to this submission learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that this is a review petition filed against an order passed in CRP No.2018/2013 dated 05.12.2013. He also submits that 4 the petitioner herein had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. In the circumstances, it is noted that as against the order dated 05.12.2013, Review Petition No.200008/2014 was preferred which was dismissed on 05.06.2014. Against the order of dismissal, petitioner had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition which was also dismissed on 19.09.2016. Now this review petition once again assails order dated 05.12.2013. This is nothing but a second review petition filed against the order dated 05.12.2013. Such a petition is not maintainable on the principles of res-judicata as earlier review petition has been dismissed by order dated 05.06.2014. Further when the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declined to entertain the special leave petition filed against order dated 05.06.2014, the filing of this review petition is nothing 5 but an abuse of the process of Court, more so after the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declined to grant leave against the orders passed by this Court on 5.12.2013 and 5.6.2014 by dismissing the Special Leave Petition. Hence, this Court cannot entertain this review petition and reconsider the aforesaid orders in this review petition. Any consideration of the same would be against judicial discipline and an impropriety. In the circumstances, this review petition is dismissed. However, I refrain from imposing costs on the petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE RSP