Judgment : 1 This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 18.01.2010 in I.A.No.571 of 2009 in O.S.No.4528 of 2009 on the file of the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad wherein the said application filed by the Petitioner herein, who is the first defendant in the suit, under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, was dismissed. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondent and perused the record. 3 The first Respondent – plaintiff filed the suit for injunction restraining the Petitioner – D.1 from demolishing the suit schedule mulgi bearing 20-4-1209, Lad Bazar, Hyderabad and making new construction thereon. The Petitioner filed I.A.No.571 of 2009 under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the schedule mulgi is a Wakf property and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same as the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 85 of the Wakf Act. The first Respondent – plaintiff filed counter opposing the application inter alia contending that the schedule property is not a Wakf property and the provisions of the Wakf Act are not applicable and therefore the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed for injunction. The leaned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the said application on the ground that the dispute regarding the nature and character of the property as Wakf property is not involved in the present suit and hence Section 85 of the Wakf Act has no application and therefore the civil court has got jurisdiction and the suit is not barred. 4 Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC contemplates that the plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. In the plaint it is alleged that the plaintiff is the owner of the schedule mulgi and the first defendant high handedly started demolition as the mulgi of the first defendant and the suit mulgi are adjacent to each other. The plaintiff also claims to be in possession of the suit mulgi and carrying on business therein since 50 years. In the plaint it is alleged that the plaintiff is the owner of the schedule mulgi and the first defendant high handedly started demolition as the mulgi of the first defendant and the suit mulgi are adjacent to each other. The plaintiff also claims to be in possession of the suit mulgi and carrying on business therein since 50 years. In the affidavit filed in support of the application by D-1, it is stated that previously he filed a suit in O.S.No.2 of 2002 before the Wakf Tribunal for recovery of possession of the suit mulgi and the same was decreed on 29.07.2004 and aggrieved by the same, the defendants therein preferred CRP No.5269 of 2004 and the same was dismissed by this court on 28.07.2007 and the Review Petition filed by the defendants therein was also dismissed in Review M.P.No.7532 of 2007 on 28.12.2007 and the SLP No.5867 of 2008 and SLP 5868 of 2008 preferred by the defendants therein were also dismissed by the Supreme Court. It is further averred in the affidavit that thereafter the Petitioner herein filed E.P.No.42 of 2008 for execution of the decree and obtained delivery of possession and subsequently the J.Drs delivered possession of the ground floor and first floor of the building and the present Respondent No.1 has been set up by the J.Drs in E.P.No.42 of 2002 claiming alleged rights of tenancy in respect of the first floor. It is also stated that the plaintiff herein filed the claim petition E.A.No.273 of 2008 in E.P.No.42 of 2002 and the same is pending and the first Respondent herein without disclosing the same, filed the present suit. The filing of the suit in O.S.No.2 of 2002 and the fact that the said suit was decreed is not disputed by the first Respondent. In the impugned order also it is noted by the learned Junior Civil Judge that both parties admitted about the filing of earlier suit O.S.No.2 of 2002 before the Wakf Tribunal and the decree passed therein, wherein it was held that the suit property was a Wakf property. The Learned Junior Civil Judge, however, dismissed the application observing that no dispute regarding the nature and character of the property as such arises for consideration in the present suit and hence Section 85 of the A.P. Wakf Act has no application. The Learned Junior Civil Judge, however, dismissed the application observing that no dispute regarding the nature and character of the property as such arises for consideration in the present suit and hence Section 85 of the A.P. Wakf Act has no application. 5 Section 85 of the A.P.Wakf Act which contains bar of the jurisdiction of the civil court states that no suit or other legal proceedings shall lie in any civil court in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to Wakf property or other matter which is required by or under this Act to be determined by the Tribunal. In the present case, the suit property was held to be a Wakf property in the earlier litigation in O.S.No.2 of 2002 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal. The dispute in the present suit is in respect of the alleged high handed demolition of a portion of the suit property which is previously held to be a Wakf property, by the Petitioner-defendant. Section 85 of the Wakf Act categorically bars the jurisdiction of the civil court by containing a provision to the effect that no suit or other proceedings shall lie in any civil court in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to any Wakf or Wakf property. 6 In Mahboob Khan Vs. Mohd. Khaja and others 2005 (2) ALT 308 this court held that any dispute or matters relating to Wakf or Wakf property including suit for perpetual injunction can be entertained only by a Wakf Tribunal and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction, in view of Section 83 and 85 of the Act. In Muzafar Ali and others Vs. District Colllector and others 2005 (1) ALD 750 (DB) a division bench of this court held as follows: “Having considered the conflicting claims of the parties as regards the property in question, we are of the view that such disputed questions must be decided by the appropriate and competent authority constituted for the purposes of the Act. Wakf Act, 1995 is the Legislation brought in for providing better administration of Wakfs and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The State Government is required to constitute Wakf Tribunals under Section 83 of the Act, which, alone is competent to determine any dispute, question or other matter relating to a Wakf or Wakf property under the Act. Wakf Act, 1995 is the Legislation brought in for providing better administration of Wakfs and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The State Government is required to constitute Wakf Tribunals under Section 83 of the Act, which, alone is competent to determine any dispute, question or other matter relating to a Wakf or Wakf property under the Act. The jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is barred under section 85 of the Act. The decision of the Wakf Tribunal is subject to further appeals. Section 54 requires the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board to take steps for removing of encroachment from Wakf property. This, of course, has to be done by him after issuing notice in the prescribed manner and on failure to remove the encroachments from the Wakf property, to take further steps for removal of encroachments.” 7 In a recent decision between Board of Wakf, West Bengal Vs. Anis Fatma Begum and another 2011 (1) ALD 61 (SC), the Supreme Court dealing with the scope of jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal held as follows: 10. In our opinion, all matters pertaining to Wakfs should be filed in the first instance before the Wakf Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 and should not be entertained by the Civil Court or by the High Court straightaway under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 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. X X X X X X 14. Thus, the Wakf Tribunal can decide all disputes, questions or other matters relating to a Wakf or 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 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 Sectin 3 (r), then any dispute, question or other matter relating to it should be agitated before the Wakf Tribunal. 8 In the above decision a reference was made to Ramesh Gobindram Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, 2010 (6) ALD 76 (SC) wherein the apex Court held that eviction proceedings can only be decided by the civil court and not by the Wakf Tribunal and the said decision was held not applicable as the dispute in the case before the apex court was not an eviction dispute. In the present case also the dispute is not in respect of eviction from the suit property but is regarding grant of injunction. In view of the pronouncement of the apex court in the above recent decision, it must be held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court entertaining the present suit is clearly barred under section 85 of the Wakf Act and hence the suit is not maintainable before the Civil Court. The impugned order dismissing the application and holding that the Civil Court has got jurisdiction and section 85 of the Wakf Act does not come in the way, is, therefore, held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. The trial court is directed to return the plaint for presentation before the Wakf Tribunal, which alone has jurisdiction to deal with the matter. 9 The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.