JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. Heard Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Mohd. Aslam Khan and perused the record. 2. Facts in brief of the present case are that the revisionist/Syed Mohd. Shahid Anwar filed a suit registered as Regular Suit No.74 of 2011 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambedkar Nagar for declaration and injunction. 3. During the pendency of the said suit, an application for amendment (paper no.43-Ka) has been moved supported by an affidavit (paper no.44-Ga) with the following prayer : - ---Hindi--- 4. In addition to the said application, another application marked as paper no.21-Ga has been moved for impleadment of the Sunni Central Waqf Board, Lucknow. 5. By order dated 05.09.2014, Civil Judge (S.D.), Ambedkarnagar rejected the application for amendment, fixed 03.10.2014 for disposal of the application for impleadment. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under : - ---Hindi--- 6. In view of the above said background, the present revision has been filed by the revisionist. 7. The submissions made by Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate in nutshell are that Civil Judge (Senior Division) has also been conferred with the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal to entertain and adjudicate upon the suits/references under the Wakf Act. So, the learned court below on a sheer misconstruction of law has illegally rejected the application for amendment, ignoring the law propounded by this Hon'ble Court as well as Apex Court, hence, the impugned order dated 5.9.2014 is vitiated in law. Because by way of amendment, it is sought that after the words "Civil Judge (Senior Division)", the word "Wakf Tribunal" to be incorporated whioch has been left out due to typographical error, as such, the amendment sought for was too trivial, more particularly when the same authority was exercising the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal. So, he submits that the impugned order dated 05.09.2014, Civil Judge (S.D.), Ambedkar Nagar is contrary to law, liable to be set aside. 8. I have heard learned counsel for revisionist and gone through the records. 9. As per undisputed facts of the present case, the revisionist has filed a suit for declaration and injunction registered as Regular Suit No. 74 of 2011 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambedkar Nagar. 8. I have heard learned counsel for revisionist and gone through the records. 9. As per undisputed facts of the present case, the revisionist has filed a suit for declaration and injunction registered as Regular Suit No. 74 of 2011 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambedkar Nagar. Further, it is not disputed by learned counsel for the revisionist, rather admitted at the time of passing of the plaint, Munsif of the court concerned has submitted a report that the same is cognizable by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambedkar Nagar as per averments made therein. 10. Moreover, it is also not in dispute that Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambedkar Nagar has also been conferred with the power of the Wakf Tribunal as per the provisions of Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 in order to decide the dispute in respect of the Wakf Property. 11. It is late in a day to quarrel that if there is a dispute in respect of the Wakf Property then the same can be adjudicated only by the Wakf Tribunal constituted as per Section 85 of Wakf Act, 1995 which reads as under : - "No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie in any civil court in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to any wakf, wakf property or other matter which is required by or under this Act to be determined by a Tribunal." 12. In this regard, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Board of Wakf, West Bengal vs. Anis Fatma Begum and another 2011 (29) LCD 60 held as under : - "We may clarify that under the proviso to Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 a party aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal can approach the High Court which can call for the records for satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the decision of the Tribunal. This provision make it clear that the intention of Parliament is that the party who wishes to raise any dispute or matter relating to a Wakf or Wakf property should first approach the Tribunal before approaching the High Court. It is well-settled that when there is a special law providing for a special forum, then recourse cannot be taken to the general law vide Justice G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation (9th Edn. 2004,pp 133-134). It is well-settled that when there is a special law providing for a special forum, then recourse cannot be taken to the general law vide Justice G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation (9th Edn. 2004,pp 133-134). In Chief Engineer, Hydel Project & Ors. v. Ravinder Nath & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 350 , this Court held that when the matter fell in the area covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction. In the above decision the Court has referred to several earlier decisions on this point. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that since the matter fell under the purview of the Wakf Act, only the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction in the matter, and not the Civil Court." 13. Accordingly, the core question which is to be decided in the present case that if Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambedkar Nagar has also conferred with the power of Wakf Tribunal as per the provisions of Wakf Act, 1995 then in that circumstances the action on the part of the said authority thereby rejecting the petitioner's application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. in view of the reasoning given in the impugned order under challenge in the present case is in accordance with law or not. 14. Needless to mention herein that after arguing the matter in question at some length, Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist has very fairly submits that in the matter, the revisionist has got remedy to take back his plaint and file a suit before the appropriate Court/Tribunal or he has got remedy to move an application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambedkar Nagar for transfer of the suit before Tribunal. So, the revisionist may be permitted to exercise one of the said option. 15. So, the revisionist may be permitted to exercise one of the said option. 15. Thus, keeping in view the above said facts without deciding the validity of the order dated 05.09.2014, Civil Judge (S.D.), Ambedkar Nagar on merit in the present case, revision is disposed of with a direction that it will be open for the revisionist either to withdraw the suit registered as as Regular Suit No.74 of 2011 from the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambedkar Nagar and file fresh before Tribunal or move an application under Order 7 Rule 10 C.P.C. before the Civil Judge (S.D.), Ambedkar Nagar for transfer before Tribunal. If any of the said exercise is done by the revisionist then in that circumstances, the same shall be considered and decided first prior to taking any decision in the matter in question.