JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 25.07.2005 passed by the Court of 3rd Civil Subordinate Judge (Excise Magistrate) Jammu in terms whereof a preliminary issue has been decided in favour of the respondent (Plaintiff). The preliminary issue was to the following effect:-- "Whether the jurisdiction of this Court to hear and decide the suit is barred under Section 62 of J&K Wakafs Act, 2001? (O.P.D) 2. Basically a strip of land measuring 69 feets on North, 78 feets South, 33 feets East, 36 feets West situated at Maqbera Begum, Christian Colony, Jammu was allotted to one Raj Pal S/o. Manga Ram for a period of eleven months. 3. It is stated that Raj Pal along with the respondent-plaintiff started joint business of building material and Furniture etc. under the name and style of M/S. Kundan Lal Raj Pal. After some time Raj Pal (allottee) voluntarily retired from the said business and thereafter the premises remained in the possession of respondent-plaintiff who has been depositing monthly rent of Rs. 100/- on behalf of the Raj Pal. 4. On the expiry of the allotment, proceedings were initiated as against the Raj Pal. A reference under Section 43 of the Jammu and Kashmir Wakafs Act, 1978 was made which has been decided on 27.12.1996 by the Court of Eviction Authority Wakafs J&K, Camp Jammu as it then was. Respondent being in un-authorized occupation of Wakaf property, as shown and defined in the reference, was directed to vacate the said Wakaf property within 15 days after copy of the order was affixed at a conspicuous part of Wakaf property. For one reason or the other said order perhaps has not carried into effect. 5. Petitioner-Authority seems to have initiated the action for eviction as against the respondent-plaintiff, as a result whereof respondent has filed a civil suit for permanent injunction before the Court of 3rd Civil Subordinate Judge (Excise Magistrate), Jammu with a prayer that the Administrator Auqaf shall not evict him forcibly from the suit land except in due course of law. 6. It was contended that the petitioner-defendant has no legal status to acquire the aforesaid piece of land as he was neither the allottee nor any agreement has been executed with him, therefore, Wakaf authorities were within their power to initiate action for eviction as permissible under the provisions of Wakafs Act. 6. It was contended that the petitioner-defendant has no legal status to acquire the aforesaid piece of land as he was neither the allottee nor any agreement has been executed with him, therefore, Wakaf authorities were within their power to initiate action for eviction as permissible under the provisions of Wakafs Act. Alongside the other defenses, it was also projected that the suit is not maintainable in view of the clear bar envisaged by Section 62 of the Wakafs Act of 2001. 7. This revision petition earlier was allowed vide judgment dated 05.03.2008, but the said judgment was re-called on the basis of review petition filed on the ground that respondent was not put on notice, therefore not heard. 8. Now the star question which arises for consideration is as to whether for want of cause of action suit was maintainable, without going to the other aspects i.e. whether in view of Section 62 of the Wakafs Act Court had the jurisdiction. 9. Position as emerged and is also agreed by learned counsel for the parties is that the suit property admittedly is a Wakaf property, it was allotted to one Raj Pal for a period of 11 months which period has since expired. It is also admitted that after the expiry of the period of allotment, Court of Eviction Authority after acceptance of the reference under Section 43 of the J&K Wakafs Act, 1978 had ordered for eviction of the respondent-plaintiff being unauthorized occupant. It is also admitted that there is no allotment in the name of the respondent-plaintiff. 10. It is also admitted that the respondent has managed his entry only under the garb of the joint business as he had joined hands with the original allottee Raj Pal, thereafter continued to be in possession as is also supported by a letter which was addressed by the petitioner-Authority to the Private Secretary to Govt. Revenue Auqaf Department under No. 956-57/2002, dated 04.03.2003. 11. The controversy is narrowed down i.e. as to whether in view of the clear stand and admitted position, cause of action would survive for maintaining the suit. The only prayer made by the respondent-plaintiff is that he shall not be evicted except in due course of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner (defendant) admitted that Authority will strictly proceed against the respondent-plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of the Wakaf Act. 12. The only prayer made by the respondent-plaintiff is that he shall not be evicted except in due course of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner (defendant) admitted that Authority will strictly proceed against the respondent-plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of the Wakaf Act. 12. Prayer made in the suit by the respondent - plaintiff is only that he shall not be dispossessed/evicted except in due course of law, cause of action had not accrued so plaint should have been rejected. Without going into the controversy of jurisdiction of the Civil Court as being not required, with the consensus of the learned counsel for the parties, the revision petition is disposed of in the following manner:-- (a) Petitioner-Authority shall proceed strictly in accordance with the provisions of Wakafs Act, 2001 and in the process respondent-plaintiff shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard as may be required in light of the relevant provisions of the Wakafs Act. (b) The suit in light of the aforesaid position i.e. for non-survival of cause of action shall, accordingly, stand dismissed. A copy of the order be certified to the Trial Court for information. Disposed of as above.