Judgment Akil Kureshi, J.—Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Board of Wakf, West Bengal vs. Anis Fatma Begum & Anr., in Civil Appeal No. 5297 of 2004 decided on 23.11.2010 to contend that civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He further pointed out that in the case of Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, in Civil Appeal No. 1182 of 2006 decided on 1.09.2010, the property was admittedly of the Wakf in which certain persons were claiming tenancy rights in which background,the Apex Court held that civil court would decide the issue of tenancy, however, the case of Ramesh Govindram (Supra) was cited before the Apex Court in the case of Board of Wakf, West Bengal (Supra) in which the Apex Court held and observed as under: “11. It may be mentioned that the Wakf Act, 1995 is a recent parliamentary statute which has constituted a special Tribunal for deciding disputes relating to Wakfs. The obvious purpose of constituting such a Tribunal was that a lot of cases relating to Wakfs were being filed in the courts in India and they were occupying a lot of time of all the Courts in the country, which resulted in increase in pendency of cases in the Courts. Hence, a special Tribunal has been constituted for deciding such matters. 12. Section 83 (1) of the Wakf Act, 1995 states, “83. Constitution of Tribunal, etc. (1) the State Government shall, by notification if the Official Gazette, constitute as many Tribunals as it may think fit, for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a Wakf or Wakf property under this Act and define the local limits and jurisdiction under this Act of each or such Tribunals.” 13. Section 84 of the Act states “84. Tribunal to hold proceedings expeditiously and to furnish to the parties copies of its decision “ Whenever an application is made to a Tribunal for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a Wakf of Wakf property it shall hold its proceedings as expeditiously as possible and shall as soon as practicable on the conclusion of the hearing of such matter give its decision in writing and furnish a copy of such decision to each of the parties to the dispute”. 14. 14. Thus, the Wakf Tribunal can decide all disputes, questions or other matters relating to a Wakf of Wakf property. The words “any dispute, question or other matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property” are in our opinion, words of very wide connotation. Any dispute, question or other matters whatsoever and in whatever manner which arises relating to a Wakf or Wakf property can be decided by the Wakf Tribunal. The word ‘wakf’ has been defined in Section 3 (r) of the Wakf Act, 1995 and hence once the property is found to be a Wakf property as defined in Section 3 (r), then any dispute, question or other matter relating to it should be agitated before the Wakf Tribunal. 15. Under Section 83 (5) of the Wakf Act, 1995 the Tribunal has all powers of the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, and hence it has also powers under Order 39 Rules 1, 2 and 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant temporary injunctions and enforce such injunctions. Hence, a full-fledged remedy is available to any party if there is any dispute, question or other matter relating to a Wakf or Wakf property.” x x x x “23. Learned Counsel for the respondent, however, relied on the decision of this Court in Ramesh Gobidnram vs. Sugra Humayun Wakf, (2010) 8 Scale 698. In the aforesaid decision it was held that eviction proceedings can only be decided by the Civil Court and not by the Waif Tribunal. x x x x x 25. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned judgment of the Calcutta High Court cannot be sustained and it is hereby set aside. We hold that only the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction in the matter and the parties can approach the Wakf Tribunal, if so advised. The appeal stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 2. The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 19.7.2006 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Mehmedabad below application Ex.125 in Civil Suit No. 32 of 2004. By the said order, the learned Judge refused to decide the question of jurisdiction as preliminary issue. 3. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff, present respondent questioned the ownership of Wakf of the suit property. In the suit, prayer made was for right of way through Kabrastan land. By the said order, the learned Judge refused to decide the question of jurisdiction as preliminary issue. 3. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff, present respondent questioned the ownership of Wakf of the suit property. In the suit, prayer made was for right of way through Kabrastan land. Such being the issue, in my opinion, as held by the Apex Court, it can be decided only by the Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act, 1995. Civil suit is therefore not maintainable. Instead of remanding the proceedings for fresh consideration by the civil court, it is declared that the suit would not be maintainable. It would, however, be open for the plaintiff to approach the Tribunal by filing appropriate application. The petition is disposed of accordingly. P P P P P