MAHABOOSA BEGUM and ORS . Vs. TAMIL NADU WAKF BOARD and ANR .
EmailAppeal: CIVIL APPEAL NO.8298 OF 2015
Petitioner: MAHABOOSA BEGUM and ORS .
Respondent: TAMIL NADU WAKF BOARD and ANR .
Judges: ANIL R. DAVE , ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
Date of Judgment: Oct 06, 2015
JUDGEMENT:
NON- CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8298 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.21306 of 2014)
MAHABOOSA BEGUM & ORS . … APPELLANT(S)
VS.
TAMIL NADU WAKF BOARD & ANR … RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ANIL R. DAVE, J.
1. Leave granted. 2. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that the examination of the witnesses was objected. Ultimately the production of the documents was also objected and the High Court set aside the sale. 3. In our opinion, at this juncture, the High Court should not have objected to the examination of witnesses and production of documents. 4. Needless to say that it would be open to the parties to raise all contentions available to them at law and produce documents, which should have been produced before the trial court. 5. In the circumstances we set aside the impugned order and the interim relief granted by this Court is vacated. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the parties desire that the trial court be requested to conclude the trial at an early date. 7. We are sure that the learned counsel appearing for the parties before the trial court shall extend their cooperation to the trial court. The trial court shall proceed with the trial and conclude it as soon as possible. 8. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 2nd November, 2015. Intimation of this order be forwarded to the trial court forthwith. 9. The appeal is disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs.
…………..J. [ANIL R. DAVE]
…………..J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL] New Delhi; 6th October, 2015.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8298 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.21306 of 2014)
MAHABOOSA BEGUM & ORS . … APPELLANT(S)
VS.
TAMIL NADU WAKF BOARD & ANR … RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ANIL R. DAVE, J.
1. Leave granted. 2. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that the examination of the witnesses was objected. Ultimately the production of the documents was also objected and the High Court set aside the sale. 3. In our opinion, at this juncture, the High Court should not have objected to the examination of witnesses and production of documents. 4. Needless to say that it would be open to the parties to raise all contentions available to them at law and produce documents, which should have been produced before the trial court. 5. In the circumstances we set aside the impugned order and the interim relief granted by this Court is vacated. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the parties desire that the trial court be requested to conclude the trial at an early date. 7. We are sure that the learned counsel appearing for the parties before the trial court shall extend their cooperation to the trial court. The trial court shall proceed with the trial and conclude it as soon as possible. 8. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 2nd November, 2015. Intimation of this order be forwarded to the trial court forthwith. 9. The appeal is disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs.
…………..J. [ANIL R. DAVE]
…………..J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL] New Delhi; 6th October, 2015.
