Pankaj Mithal, J.;— Heard Sri M.A. Qadeer, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri M.H. Qadeer, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs revisionists and Sri Pradeep Kumar, holding brief of Sri K.S. Kushwaha, who appears for respondent No.2. By this revision under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the plaintiffs revisionist are seeking setting aside of the order dated 12.9.2012 passed by the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Varanasi exercising powers of the Wakf Tribunal. The Tribunal by the said order has allowed application of the defendants respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and has rejected the plaint of the plaintiffs revisionists in a suit for a decree of permanent injunction. There is a Wakf known as Takiya Kamal Shah Baba Waka Mauja Amarpur in District Varanasi, which is registered as Wakf No.2356 with Sunni Central Board of Wakf, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Wakf Board). The plaintiffs revisionists claiming themselves Muslims by religion and having interest in the said Wakf filed a suit for decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants respondents from occupying any part of the property of the Wakf as shown in the plaint. The suit has been registered as Waqf reference No.1 of 2010. In the said suit/reference the defendants respondents filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. contending that the Wakf Board vide order dated 30.06.08 has appointed a Committee of Management for a period of one year to manage the affairs of the aforesaid Wakf and that the term of the said Committee of Management has been extended until further orders by the order of the Chairman of the Wakf Board dated 24.08.09. Since the said orders have not been challenged, the suit/reference as filed by the plaintiffs revisionists is barred by Section 32 (2)(d) of the Act. The court below by the impugned order in rejecting the plaint/reference has assigned basically two reasons namely that the suit/reference is premature as the plaintiffs revisionists have an alternate remedy of representing to the Wakf Board and that the plaintiffs revisionists have not claimed the relief for setting aside the aforesaid two orders of the Wakf Board appointing the Committee of Management and as such is barred by Section 32(2)(d) of the Act. Learned counsel for the parties are unanimous on the opinion that apart from other things as provided under the Act even a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the Wakf property lies before the Tribunal and that the Tribunal is a Civil Court having the same powers as the Civil Court and that it is bound to follow the procedure as has been prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. It means that there is unanimity on the point the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. are applicable to the proceedings initiated before the Tribunal under the Act. Section 85 of the Act clearly bars the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of any dispute, question or matter relating to the Wakf property or any other matter which is required to be determined by the Tribunal under the Act. Simultaneously Section 83 of the Act which provides for the Constitution of the Wakf Tribunal vide Sub-Section (2) provides that any mutawalli or person interested in a Wakf or any other person aggrieved by an order made under the Act, or the rules may make an application to the Tribunal for the determination of such dispute question or matter relating to the Wakf. Thus at one place the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been excluded and at the other it has been conferred upon the Tribunal in respect of all disputes, questions or matters relating to the Wakf. Thus, no proceedings in respect of any dispute relating to Wakf or Wakf property is liable to be adjudicated by any other court except the Tribunal. The Apex Court in the case of Board of Wakf, West Bengal Vs. Anis Fatma Begum @ another 2010 14 SCC 588 while considering the above provisions of the Wakf Act clearly held that the Wakf Tribunal can decide all disputes, questions or other matters whatsoever and whatever manner arising relating to the Wakf or the Wakf property. It has power of a civil court so as to grant injunctions. It has further been laid down therein that the Tribunal can be approached even if there is no order passed by any authority under the Wakf Act inasmuch as the Tribunal is not confined to determination of the correctness of an order passed under the Act. It has power of a civil court so as to grant injunctions. It has further been laid down therein that the Tribunal can be approached even if there is no order passed by any authority under the Wakf Act inasmuch as the Tribunal is not confined to determination of the correctness of an order passed under the Act. In view of above decision irrespective of the fact that the plaintiffs revisionists have not challenged the orders of the Wakf Board in the aforesaid suit/reference, the Tribunal is competent to determine the dispute which had arisen between the parties and to grant injunctions. Section 32(2) of the Act lays down the powers and the functions of the Wakf Board. One of the functions of the Wakf Board as provided in clause (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act is to settle schemes of management for a Wakf. It is on the strength of the above power of the Wakf Board, it is said that the Committee of Management has been appointed with defendant respondent No.2 as its secretary by the Wakf Board by the order dated 30.6.2008/29.06.09 and until and unless the said orders are challenged, the suit as filed is not maintainable. Section 32(3) of the Act provides that where the Wakf Board has settled any schemes of management under clause (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act the same can be challenged by means of a suit in a tribunal. It does not in any manner lays down that if the orders formulating or settling any schemes of management as aforesaid are not challenged, the suit for injunction would not be maintainable. The aforesaid provision cannot be stretched so as to mean that it implidely bars the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain a suit for permanent injunction. Apart from Section 32 of the Act there is no other provision under the Act which specifically bars the institution of a suit for permanent injunction before the Tribunal. Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. applies only in specified contingencies. One of which is where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Apart from Section 32 of the Act there is no other provision under the Act which specifically bars the institution of a suit for permanent injunction before the Tribunal. Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. applies only in specified contingencies. One of which is where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. In view of plain and simple language used in Rule 11 of Order 7 C.P.C. it is only the statement appearing in the plaint that has to be seen for the purposes of determining as to whether suit is barred by any law. This is what has been laid down repeatedly and has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhau Ram Vs. Janak Singh and others AIR 2012 SC 3023 . It says that for the purposes of deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. only the averments made in the plaint can be taken into consideration and the pleas of the written statement are totally irrelevant. In other words any material other than the plaint allegations are of no use for the purposes of deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. The plaint as filed before the Tribunal does not contain averment that the Wakf Board has settled any scheme for the management of the Wakf in accordance with the provision of Section 32 2(d) of the Act though it do mentions that there was a Committee of Management for a period of one year whose term has already expired. The averment with regard to the constitution of the said Committee of Management and its continuation even after the expiry of one year has come only through the application filed by the defendants respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. It is not a material forming part for the plaint or the plaint allegation. Thus such an averment cannot be looked into in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, as it is only the plaint allegations that are relevant for rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and that Section 32(2) of the Act does not specifically bars the institution of a suit of permanent injunction in respect of the Wakf property, I am of the view that the court below had erred in rejecting the plaint. It is useful to refer that rejection of the plaint or the maintainability of the suit may be one aspect and the feasibility of grant of interim injunction is another. In view of the averments which have been brought on record through application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. regarding the interim arrangement alleged to have been made by the Wakf Board by appointing a Committee of Management which is said to be continuing the plaintiffs respondents may not be entitle for an interim injunction but this in itself would not be sufficient for rejecting the plaint of the suit. Accordingly the order dated 12.9.2012 is hereby set aside with the direction to the tribunal to proceed and decide the suit/reference in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the revision is allowed with the above observation. _____________