(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order and judgment of the Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal or condone the delay petition in I.A. No.234/2025 in O.S.No.168/2019, dated 31.07.2025 and the delay is may be condoned.)

1. The petitioners are defendants in O.S.No. 168 of 2019 filed before the Tamil Nadu WAQF Tribunal. The petitioners filed I.A.No. 234 of 2025 seeking condonation of delay of 1392 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte order dated 05.04.2021. The WAQF Tribunal dismissed the said application as against which, the present revision has been filed.

2. I have heard Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.L.Gavaskar, learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the first defendant in the suit, Naseema Begum had died even in the year 2016, and therefore the very institution of the suit against a dead person and consequently the ex- parte order passed are a nullity and would not bind the petitioners. The learned counsel would further state that the respondent has therefore played fraud not only upon the Court, but also against the petitioners and therefore, the WAQF Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay and given an opportunity to the petitioners to contest the suit on merits. It is also the contention of Mr.Sanjiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel that the respondent endowment is not even recognized by the WAQF Board and information in this regard had been furnished by the Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act.

4. He would also state that a police complaint has been filed against the respondent/plaintiff and FIR has also been registered and even as late as in 2010, in a Writ Petition, this Court directed issuance of patta to Shajahan Hussain. It is therefore the submission of Mr.Sanjiv Kumar Singh that the Tribunal failed to exercise discretion vested with it, in order to condone the delay, irrespective of the length of the delay, especially when the petitioners has established fraud played by the respondent/plaintiff.

5. Per contra, Mr.L.Gavaskar, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, would submit that the legal representatives of the deceased Naseema Begum, first defendant in the suit who is said to have died even in 2016, were already defendants in the suit and therefore, no prejudice is caused to any of the petitioners.

6. As regards, the delay, Mr.L.Gavaskar, learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that subsequent to the decree passed on 05.04.2021, the respondent/plaintiff filed an Execution Petition and the petitioners have engaged the very same Counsel to enter appearance in the Execution Petition as early as on 16.11.2022. However, the Section 5 application to condone delay in setting aside the ex-parte order, came to be filed only on 27.02.2025 for which there is absolutely no explanation forthcoming on the side of the petitioners. He would also bring to my notice that even in the Execution Petition, a Section 47 application was filed and the same was also dismissed.

7. Mr.L.Gavaskar, learned counsel for the respondent, would further state that despite residing in the very same address to which notices and summons were sent in the suit, the petitioners conveniently evaded the same, but however, when it came to the Execution Petition, notices were received at the very same address.

8. He would rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basant Singh and another vs. Roman Catholic Mission, reported in AIR 2002 SC 3557, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, when summons is proved to have been sent by registered post to a correct and given address, then a presumption of proper service would arise, and thereafter it is for the defendants to lead evidence to rebut such presumption.

9. Mr.L.Gavaskar would further point out that, this is not the first occasion where the respondent/plaintiff had sought for evicting the petitioners and even on an earlier occasion, when a suit was filed in O.S.No. 4693 of 2010 and a decree was obtained, thereafter an E.P.No. 2119 of 2012 was filed, Shajahan Hussain, approached the respondent and admitted tenancy under the respondent and accepted to pay rent at the rate of Rs.600/- per month, besides Court expenses incurred by the respondent. In fact, it is brought to my notice that the said document has been also exhibited as R2 in the interlocutory applications before the Trial Court in the condone delay application. It is therefore contended by Mr.L.Gavaskar, learned counsel for the respondent that, without even paying any rents, the petitioners are squatting on the property of the respondent and they do not deserve any indulgence whatsoever.

10. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. I have also gone through the order impugned in the revision.

11. The petitioners sought to set aside the ex-parte order passed in O.S.168 of 2019 along with an application to condone the delay of 1392 days. In the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application, except for stating that Naseema Begum and Shajahan Hussain had died on 20.11.2016 and 08.01.2023 respectively, and that because of COVID-19 pandemic, in respect of which when the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed all Courts and Tribunals in India not to pass any adverse orders, without affording minimum opportunity of hearing and prior intimation, the Trial Court has to necessarily condone the delay. There is absolutely no reason explaining the delay of 1392 days. In fact, during the course of the hearing, I also gave an opportunity to the petitioners to file an additional affidavit to show “sufficient cause”. Though an affidavit dated 31.10.2025 of Mr.B.Hameed Hussain came to be filed before this Court, excepting for stating that 2019, 2020 and 2021 were COVID-19 periods, and the ex-parte decree had been passed on 05.04.2021, during the COVID period the delay ought to have been condoned, there is no explanation at all. In fact, the Trial Court has already taken note of the COVID-19 pandemic and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. With regard to the exclusion of the pandemic period while computing limitation, it has been found that even if the COVID-19 pandemic period is excluded, there would still be a delay which has not been explained to the satisfaction of the Court.

12. Further, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent, Mr.L.Gavaskar, there is absolutely no reason as to why the petitioners, despite having entered appearance in the Execution Petition on 16.11.2022, which was long after the COVID-19 pandemic exempted period, never chose to approach the Tribunal to set aside the ex-parte decree until 27.02.2025. The said period stands totally unexplained. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal cannot be faulted with and rightly, the Tribunal has dismissed the application holding that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained.

13. Even with regard to the allegation of fraud played by the respondent/plaintiff, I find that even in the plaint, the present petitioners have all been impleaded as defendants in the suit and therefore, they cannot contend that decree has been snatched away suppressing the fact of demise of Naseema Begum even in 2016.

14. As regards to the argument of Mr.Sanjiv Kumar Singh, that the respondent/plaintiff endowment has not even been recognized by the Board, in the light of the 5th defendant Shajahan Hussain, having admitted the tenancy of the respondent/plaintiff in the earlier proceedings before the competent Civil Court and on the strength of the representations and undertakings made on behalf of the petitioners, the Execution Proceedings taken to execute a decree for possession were also drawn. It is therefore totally unfair and unreasonable on the part of the petitioners to now contend that they are not tenants and that the respondent has not been recognized by the WAQF Board.

15. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the revision. The well-reasoned order of the WAQF Tribunal does not call for interference in revision. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Considering the fact that the proceedings is of the year 2010, the Waqf Tribunal/IX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, shall dispose of the E.P. No.1993 of 2022 by 30.01.2026. However, no order as to costs.