1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20th June, 2006 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Srinagar, in a case titled as Inhabitants of Nowpora Vs. Chief Executive Officer, which shall be hereinafter referred to as impugned judgment. 2. It is necessary to notice the facts of the case herein. Appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit before learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar, in a representative capacity on 18th October, 2004, which came to be transferred to the court of 3rd Additional District Judge, Srinagar. Along with the suit, appellants-plaintiffs filed three miscellaneous applications; one for grant of permission to file the suit in representative capacity, second for dispensation of notice in terms of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC and third for grant of ad-interim relief. 3. Defendants i.e. respondents 1 to 5 filed written statement on 26th February, 2005. Appellants-plaintiffs filed replica on 15th March, 2005. Defendants- respondents 1 to 5 filed objections to the said replica on 10th June, 2005. 4. It appears that without framing issue the arguments came to be heard by the learned trial court viz-a-viz maintainability of the suit. However, while writing the judgment issue came to be framed viz-a-viz maintainability of the suit, which reads as under: "Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable under law? OPD 5. The trial court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties held that civil court lacks jurisdiction to try the suit and accordingly dismissed the suit and decree sheet came to be framed. 6. It appears that an application came to be moved by sixty six persons who are inhabitants of Nowpora Cheshmashahi and New Theed for arraying them as party in the array of defendants. But without deciding the said application the impugned judgment and decree came to be passed. 7. During the pendency of the appeal in hand respondents 6 to 13 moved application for arraying them as party respondents in the appeal which came to be granted vide order dated 11th May, 2006. 8. Heard. Perused. Considered. Learned counsel for appellants argued that trial court has fallen in error while dismissing the suit without framing the issues. The trial court was under legal obligation to frame all issues and then treat those issue(s) as preliminary issue(s) which could be decided without leading evidence. 8. Heard. Perused. Considered. Learned counsel for appellants argued that trial court has fallen in error while dismissing the suit without framing the issues. The trial court was under legal obligation to frame all issues and then treat those issue(s) as preliminary issue(s) which could be decided without leading evidence. The allegations contained in the plaint were to be considered and not the averments contained in the written statement. As per the plaint the suit is maintainable. 9. Learned counsel for respondents argued that suit is not maintainable and is barred as per the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Specified Wakafs and Specified Wakaf Properties (Management and Regulation) Act, 2004, hereafter for short Wakaf Act. Further argued that the trial court is within its jurisdiction to hear the arguments and frame only one issue. Thus, trial court has not committed any illegality. 10. The trial court without framing issues heard the arguments and framed only one issue while writing the judgment. The trial court had, committed illegality and, fallen in error because the trial court was under legal obligation to frame all issues and treat those issues as preliminary issues which could be decided without leading evidence as per the mandate of Order 14 of Civil Procedure Code. The trial court has also fallen in error by framing an issue while writing the judgment. But question, at this stage, is whether any purpose would be served by remanding the case and directing trial court to frame all issues and treat those issues as preliminary issues which could be decided without leading evidence? 11. I am of the considered view that it will be a futile exercise because suit of the plaintiffs can be decided at this stage. 12. The Rules of the procedure are hand made and are aimed at to achieve the purpose of speedy justice as early as possible. The provisions are to be interpreted liberally. The procedural wrangles and tangles have no role to play and shall not come in the way of achieving the purposes of justice. The courts should not succumb to the procedural niceties and mystic maybes. 13. The remanding of the case will not serve any purpose because the suit can be decided while keeping in view the averments contained in the plaint in terms of the provisions of Wakaf Act. The courts should not succumb to the procedural niceties and mystic maybes. 13. The remanding of the case will not serve any purpose because the suit can be decided while keeping in view the averments contained in the plaint in terms of the provisions of Wakaf Act. It is profitable to reproduce the relief prayed for by the appellant-plaintiffs in the suit as under: "(A) a decree for declaration be issued in favour of plaintiffs and against defendants 1 and 2 declaring the said defendants have no right, interest or authority to cause interference in the affairs management of Ziyarat Asim Qasim Shah Sahib. (B) a decree for declaration, declaring any action taken under the act as null and void. (C) a decree for permanent injunction be issued in favour of plaintiffs and against defendants from causing any interference in the rights of plaintiffs, so for as management of affairs of Ziyarat are concerned. 14. It is averred in the plaint that administration of Ziyarat Asim Qasim Shah Sahib, Masjid Sharief and graveyard is being administered by the locals of Mohalla from times immemorial and for administration of said Ziyarat inhabitants have appointed by election a committee comprising of respectables of local Mohalla which is managing and conducting the affairs of the Ziyarat Sharief and Masjid Sharief and are discharging the duties to the satisfaction of the inhabitants. Respondents have no right to interfere and if any order is passed by defendants 1 to 5 the same be declared as null and void. Virtually, the appellants-plaintiffs have claimed relief that defendants have no authority to take possession of the suit property and have also no right to manage the affairs of the suit property. 15. Respondents have no right to interfere and if any order is passed by defendants 1 to 5 the same be declared as null and void. Virtually, the appellants-plaintiffs have claimed relief that defendants have no authority to take possession of the suit property and have also no right to manage the affairs of the suit property. 15. It is necessary to notice Section 2(l) and 2(m) of the Wakaf Act herein, which read as under:-- "(l) Specified Wakafs mean the Wakafs specified in Schedule A and such other Wakasfs as may be included therein, from time to time, by the Government by notification in the Government Gazette; (m) Specified Wakaf Properties mean the properties specified in Schedule B and includes:- (i) the properties (both moveable and immoveable), funds and other assets administered, managed or in possession of any Specified Wakaf or in respect of which any Specified Wakaf claims any title, right or interest; (ii) all Nazars, offerings, donations, Sadqa, Zakat and Ushur in any shape, kind or form made by any person and is received or is receivable by any Wakaf at present and which, under this Act, would be receivable by any authorized functionary of the Board; and (iii) any other Wakaf property, whether moveable or immoveable, to which the provisions of the Act are applied by the Government from time to time, by notification in the Government Gazette. 16. These provisions of law specifically provide that those Wakafs which are specified in Schedule A are to be governed by the provisions of this Act and also other Wakafs which may be included therein from time to time by the Government by notification in the Government Gazette. Section 2(m) of the Act defines which are the specified wakaf properties and they are included in Schedule and also other Wakaf properties which are not specified in Schedule-B can be included by issuing notification by the Government. 17. Further these provisions of law mandate that all those Wakafs which are included in schedule-A and B or which may be included, there administration, possession and management are to be managed in terms of the provisions of Wakafs Act. 18. It appears that suit property was not including in Schedule-A but came to be included in terms of notification dated 29th September, 2004 and (SRO 303). Accordingly, in terms of the said notification the defendants swung in action. 19. 18. It appears that suit property was not including in Schedule-A but came to be included in terms of notification dated 29th September, 2004 and (SRO 303). Accordingly, in terms of the said notification the defendants swung in action. 19. Appellants-plaintiffs feeling aggrieved of the SRO have virtually sought relief of declaration, contained in relief clause-B, for declaring the said SRO null and void. 20. The question is whether the suit is maintainable? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to notice Section 22-G of the Wakaf Act, herein: "22-G. Bar on jurisdiction of civil courts. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no suit or other legal proceedings shall lie in any civil court or tribunal in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to the title possession or any interest relating to Wakaf property covered under section 3 or any other matter which is required by, or under, the Act to be determined by the authorities under the Act." 21. While going through this provision of law, it clearly provides that no suit or other legal proceedings shall lie in any civil court or tribunal in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to the title, possession or any interest relating to Wakaf property covered under section 3 or any other matter which is required by, or under, the Act to be determined by the authority under the Wakaf Act. 22. The bone of contention is who will manage the suit property and who will receive the offerings, Nazars and other things as per the SRO. The suit property is a specified Wakaf property in terms of Section 2(l) and 2(m) an in terms of SRO 303. Viewed thus, the Wakaf Act applies to the suit property and in terms of Section 22-G civil court lacks jurisdiction to try the suit. 23. Having glance of the above discussion, it will be a futile exercise to remand the case and direct the trial court to frame all issues and treat those issue(s) as preliminary which could be decided without leading evidence. 24. In the given circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that civil courts jurisdiction is barred. Thus, finding returned by the trial court is upheld not for the reasons given by the trial court but for the reasons, as discussed hereinabove. 25. 24. In the given circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that civil courts jurisdiction is barred. Thus, finding returned by the trial court is upheld not for the reasons given by the trial court but for the reasons, as discussed hereinabove. 25. Accordingly, the appeal dismissed along with all connected CMP(s). Registry is directed to prepare a decree sheet and send down the record along with the copies of the judgment and decree sheet.