N. K. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) APPLICANTS-PLAINTIFFS are aggrieved by the order dated 10. 3. 1995, passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Khachrod, directing the plaintiffs to approach the proper court/forum or else their suit shall be dismissed. ( 2 ) THE suit is in respect of office in Kazi. The N. As.-defendants raised objection that in view of Section 2 of the Kazis Act and Section 7 of the Wakfs Act, 1995 the jurisdiction of civil court is barred in the matter. The trial court upheld the objection and made the direction as aforesaid. ( 3 ) I have heard Mr. S. K. Shastri, learned counsel for the applicants. None has, however, appeared for the respondents even after service of notices and issuance of SPC. ( 4 ) SECTION 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880 provides for appointment of Kazis by the State government. It further provides that if any question arises whether any person has been rightly appointed Kazi under this section, the decision thereof by the State Government shall be conclusive. However, the Act no where bars jurisdiction of civil court ( 5 ) SECTION 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure vests civil courts with jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. Explanation 1 further explains that a suit in which right to an office is contested, is a suit of civil nature. As already pointed out the Kazis Act did not bar jurisdiction of civil court. It only provided that in case of any dispute regarding appointment of a Kazi under section 2 tiie decision of the State Government shall be final. It does not, however, exclude expressly or by necessary implication jurisdiction of civil court in the matter. It is well settled that unless there is a specific provision barring jurisdiction of civil court, the courts cannot infer bar of jurisdiction by a process of implied reason. As held by the High court of Bombay in (1989) 1 Bombay 429, a suit for office of Kazi and Khati will lie even though the office is religious one with no fixed fees attached thereto. ( 6 ) SECTION 7 of the Wakfs Act deals with the powers of Tribunal to determine disputes regarding Wakfs. In the instant case there is no dispute either regarding a Wakf or a Wakf property. ( 6 ) SECTION 7 of the Wakfs Act deals with the powers of Tribunal to determine disputes regarding Wakfs. In the instant case there is no dispute either regarding a Wakf or a Wakf property. Section 7 cannot be, therefore, pressed in service to oust jurisdiction of civil court. ( 7 ) THE trial Court has also referred to para 221 of Principles of Mohamedan Law by Mulla. It provides that the Mohamedan Law does not regard the office of Kazi as heridatory. It further says that a claim to such a right though supported by customs, is not one that can be recognised by a Civil Court. A careful reading of this para would show that Civil Courts are prevented from recognising right to the office of a Kazi as heridatory. It does not in any way bars civil courts jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recognising right to such office. It only prohibits that right to such office cannot be recognised as a heridatory right. ( 8 ) IT will be, thus, seen that the order passed by the court below is not sustainable in law. This revision thus succeeds and is allowed and the order dated 10. 3. 1995 passed in Civil suit No. 45-A/93 is set aside. The court shall proceed to decide the suit in accordance with law. Revision allowed. Order set aside. .