Remand is no reset: Allahabad HC refuses ousted waqf mutawalli a second amendment to his appeal
Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava dismissed the appeal of ousted mutawalli Ahmad Jamal against a Waqf Tribunal refusal to let him amend his memorandum of appeal again after remand, holding that neither an earlier amendment nor a time-bound remand bars one, but that facts known earlier cannot be added by instalments.
Ahmad Jamal had already amended his appeal once, to challenge the man who replaced him as mutawalli of a family waqf. When the High Court sent the appeal back to the Waqf Tribunal for a fresh decision, he tried to amend it again. On 6 November 2026 the Allahabad High Court said the Tribunal was right to refuse.
Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava dismissed Waqf Appeal 20 of 2026, which challenged the Tribunal’s order of 31 August 2026. The judgment is a worked explanation of when an appellate forum may allow a party to amend his memorandum of appeal, and of what a remand with a deadline does to that power.
A family waqf and a contested office
The dispute concerns a waqf-alal-aulad created by Haji Sheikh Abdul Samad under a registered deed of 4 August 1931. The deed prescribes hereditary succession and eligibility for the office of mutawalli among the founder’s descendants.
After Haji Abdul Hai, Nizam-ul-Hai was appointed mutawalli on 20 May 1999, but the order was recalled. On 4 September 2000 Mr Jamal was appointed instead. Nizam-ul-Hai challenged that by a writ petition and by a reference before the Board, and lost both.
The fight reopened when Nizam-ul-Hai’s father, Zia-ul-Islam, claimed the office and applied under Section 64 of the Waqf Act, 1995 for Mr Jamal’s removal. The Board removed him on 4 April 2018.
Two amendments and a remand
Mr Jamal appealed to the U.P. Waqf Tribunal, Lucknow, as Waqf Appeal 5 of 2018. He alleged breach of natural justice, non-service of notice, non-supply of the inquiry report and non-compliance with Section 64(3).
Zia-ul-Islam died on 12 December 2021. On 18 May 2022 the Board appointed his son, Firoz Adil, as mutawalli. Mr Jamal applied to amend his appeal (Paper No. ka-121) to bring in that appointment and question Mr Adil’s lineage and eligibility under the 1931 deed. The Tribunal allowed it on 29 December 2022.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 19 November 2024. In Civil Revision 36 of 2025, the High Court set that decision aside on 17 February 2025 and remitted the appeal, with two months to decide it and with Sections 14, 22 and 64(3) and Issue No. 6 to be considered.
After the remand, Mr Jamal filed a proposed list of additional issues on 12 May 2026. On 6 July 2026 the Tribunal let Mr Adil place additional written objections on record. On 30 July 2026 Mr Jamal applied to amend the memorandum again (Paper No. ka-104).
What the second amendment sought
The new pleas covered the show-cause notices of 4 October and 15 November 2017, including the newspaper publication of the second, which Mr Jamal said showed mala fides. They also attacked Mr Adil’s appointment, made by the Board Chairman alone on a legal opinion of 13 May 2022.
On that appointment he pleaded breach of natural justice and Article 14, with Sections 32(2)(d), 32(2)(g) and 63 of the Act. He also relied on a notice of 16 October 2019 under Section 54 issued to Zia-ul-Islam, and sought corrections to the prayer clause.
The Tribunal rejected the application. It held that the memorandum, as already amended, had enough averments and grounds, that the new ones were not needed to decide the real questions, and that no satisfactory explanation had been given for leaving them out earlier. It also weighed the time-bound remand.
What each side argued
Mr Tanishk Goyal, with Mr Arpit Agarwal, argued for Mr Jamal that an appeal continues the original proceedings and that amendments needed for the real controversy should not be refused on technical grounds. He said the Tribunal had never framed issues on Mr Adil’s appointment and eligibility.
He added that the Tribunal had let Mr Adil file fresh objections after remand while refusing Mr Jamal the same room. A direction for quick disposal, he said, could not by itself defeat an amendment otherwise necessary.
Mr Sudhanshu Pandey for Mr Adil, and Mr Devendra Mishra holding brief for the Board’s counsel, said Mr Jamal knew of the 18 May 2022 appointment when he filed ka-121. He had given no reason for waiting until July 2026, they said, and the remand did not reopen the case.
The power exists, the right does not
Justice Srivastava framed three questions. The second set the problem for this appeal:
“Whether, following a remand by the High Court directing fresh adjudication within a specified period and with reference to identified matters, an appellant may seek a further amendment introducing factual grounds which were already in existence and within his knowledge prior to the remand” (para 21.2)
On power, he held that Order VI Rule 17, read with Section 107(2) and Order XLI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, lets an appellate forum, a Waqf Tribunal included, allow amendment of a memorandum of appeal. The Supreme Court recognised that power in State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Company.
The power is not unconditional. Drawing on Revajeetu Builders and LIC v. Sanjeev Builders, the court listed what must be weighed together: necessity for the real controversy, bona fides, whether the case is altered, prejudice, and whether the existing pleadings already suffice.
The proviso to Order VI Rule 17, which bars amendment after trial begins unless due diligence is shown, cannot be applied mechanically to an appeal that has been remitted, the court said, citing this court’s ruling in Munni Devi v. Shashikala Pandey. The thinking behind due diligence still counts, where a plea rests on facts the party knew.
In Asif Ansari v. Himanshu Sharma, the court recalled, an amendment that only repeats legal pleas already in the grounds can be declined as unnecessary. That does not cut off a pure question of law at final hearing, provided it needs no inquiry into facts not on record.
On pleadings generally it cited Ram Sarup Gupta and Bachhaj Nahar. A party ordinarily cannot go beyond the material facts pleaded, though a flaw in wording does not defeat adjudication where both sides understood the dispute and could answer it.
The court also separated two things: particulars that help decide an existing challenge, and a separate factual controversy brought in under the name of amendment. On successive amendments its summary was direct:
“A party cannot claim an unrestricted right to introduce, by successive amendments, factual pleas” (para 54)
Remand with a deadline: no bar, no licence
The appellant was partly right on the remand. The judge held that a time limit for disposal is a relevant factor, since it may weigh against an amendment that brings in an avoidable factual inquiry, but it is not an absolute bar. An amendment genuinely indispensable for deciding the appeal cannot be excluded on that ground alone.
The other half cut against him. A remand for fresh adjudication does not entitle a party to add every ground he could have raised before the first decision. The judge said it gives no fresh chance to rebuild the pleadings without regard to the stage reached or the explanation for the earlier omission.
On the 6 July 2026 order, the court held that letting one side file fresh objections does not give the other an automatic right to amend. Fairness does require a chance to meet any new plea, and the Tribunal had to look at what Mr Adil’s objections actually added.
Why the refusal stood
The court returned to the record. Application ka-121 had been allowed after Mr Adil’s appointment of 18 May 2022, and it had already put that appointment and the objections on lineage and eligibility before the Tribunal.
On the unframed issues, the court separated pleadings from issues. Issues identify what the parties dispute. If the pleadings already disclose a controversy, the fix may be to frame or reformulate an issue, and a further amendment is warranted only where an essential fact or ground is missing.
The new grounds on the appointment, including the Chairman’s authority, did not rest on anything that happened after that amendment. Mr Jamal therefore had to show why they were not raised then, and to show that the new averments were necessary.
The court noted that the original appeal already pleaded non-service of notice and denial of a hearing. It said the 2017 notices needed more than added particulars unless some material gap in the pleading was shown.
The Section 54 notice of 16 October 2019 came after the removal order of 4 April 2018, and its link to the pending challenge had to be specifically shown. Changes to the prayer, the court added, could not be used to bring in a separate challenge to another order.
The court concluded that the Tribunal had not erred. The proposed amendments were not shown to be indispensable within the scope of the remand, and nothing showed that refusing them would cause prejudice or hamper adjudication.
What the court left open
Refusal of the amendment does not shut Mr Jamal out of the law. The court said a pure question of law on the existing record, such as the authority competent to make the appointment, may still be argued before the Tribunal. It said he gets no liberty to bring a new factual case.
On issues, the court added that where the facts and grounds are already pleaded, the Tribunal’s failure to frame an issue does not stop it from considering whether an issue, or a reformulated one, is needed. That is subject to a hearing for both sides and the scope of the remand.
Order
The appeal is dismissed. The Tribunal’s order of 31 August 2026 rejecting application ka-104 in Waqf Appeal 5 of 2018 is left undisturbed, with the clarifications above.
The two months given by the order of 17 February 2025 have run out and the appeal is still pending. The Tribunal has been directed to make every endeavour to conclude it, preferably within three months of production of a certified copy of this judgment.
The court expressed no opinion on the merits of Mr Jamal’s removal or Mr Adil’s appointment. There is no order as to costs.