JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri Ateeq Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the defendant revisionist and Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Sri Puneet Kumar Gupta, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 8. 2. The revision has been preferred against the order dated 23.7.2016 passed by the Uttar Pradesh Wakf Tribunal, Rampur. 3. The Wakf Tribunal by the aforesaid order has refused to stay the proceedings of the Wakf Suit No. 3 of 2016 under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. 4. The aforesaid application was filed by Mirza Saleem Beg, one of the defendants to the subsequent suit. 5. The application has been rejected by the Wakf tribunal inter alia in view of Section 6(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which provides that the proceedings of any suit under the Act are not liable to be stayed. 6. It appears that Shiya Wakf Qabristan Makhdoom Shah Vilayat Sohab Mohanpuri Meerut registered No. 2670 as plaintiff filed suit No. 14 of 2009 against another Wakf known as Allal Khair Qabristan Shah Vilayat Shah registered No. 531 the committee of the said Wakf and the Chairman U.P. Sunni Central Wakf Board, Lucknow for a decree of permanent injunction in respect of certain plots of land restraining them from interfering with the constructions of the plaintiff therein. 7. The other suit Wakf Case No. 3 of 2016 has been instituted by Allatala Malik Wakf Alal Aulad Wakf Kabristan (Wakf No. 2670) Meerut and by Sri Ayazul Hasan Zaidi again for a decree of permanent injunction against 5 individual persons and Shiya Central Wakf Board, Lucknow. 8. A bare perusal of the plaints of the above two suits would reveal that the plaintiff in the two suits are in effect Wakf 2670 Meerut that has claimed injunction in respect of some property of the said Wakf. 9. In the first suit the injunction has been claimed against one another Wakf No. 531 and the Chairman U.P. Sunni Central Wakf Board whereas in the subsequent suit the injunction has been claimed against 5 individual persons and Shiya Central Wakf Board, Lucknow. Thus, the defendants in the two suits are different. 10. 9. In the first suit the injunction has been claimed against one another Wakf No. 531 and the Chairman U.P. Sunni Central Wakf Board whereas in the subsequent suit the injunction has been claimed against 5 individual persons and Shiya Central Wakf Board, Lucknow. Thus, the defendants in the two suits are different. 10. Apart from the fact that the defendants in the two suits are different and not common or the relief as worded in the two suits may not be substantially and directly the same in both of them, the legal question issue which arises for consideration is whether in view of Section 6(2) of the Act, the proceedings of the subsequent suit are liable to be stayed or not. 11. There is no dispute that the procedure as prescribed under C.P.C. is applicable to proceedings before the Wakf tribunal by virtue of Section 83(5) and (6) but the procedure prescribed under C.P.C. is of a general nature. The Wakf Act is a special enactment and the specific provisions therein or procedure prescribed in respect of the proceedings therein would prevail over the general procedure prescribed under the C.P.C. 12. Section 6(2) of the Act provides as under : “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no proceeding under this Act in respect of any Waqf shall be stayed by reason only of the pendency of any such suit or of any appeal or other proceeding arising out of such suit.” 13. A simple reading of Section 6(2) of the Act makes it clear that no proceedings initiated under the Act in respect of any Wakf shall be stayed by reason only of the pendency of any other such suit. In other words, it provides that the proceedings of a suit under the Act against a Wakf shall not be stayed on the ground that some other similar suit is pending. 14. In view of above provision, the applicability of Section 10 C.P.C. is overshadowed and is rendered meaningless in so far as the proceedings under the Act are concerned. 15. The purpose/object behind Section 10 C.P.C. is to avoid parallel proceedings and conflicting decision in two suits of similar nature between the same parties. 14. In view of above provision, the applicability of Section 10 C.P.C. is overshadowed and is rendered meaningless in so far as the proceedings under the Act are concerned. 15. The purpose/object behind Section 10 C.P.C. is to avoid parallel proceedings and conflicting decision in two suits of similar nature between the same parties. The said object of Section 10 C.P.C. can be achieved by consolidating or clubbing the two suits of the same nature in respect of the same property which would avoid conflicting decision and leading of evidence independently in both the suits. 16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the tribunal by impugned order dated 23.7.2016 has rightly observed that it is not an appropriate case where the proceedings of the subsequent suit be stayed by applying either the provisions of Section 10 C.P.C. or the analogy behind the same rather the purpose would be subserved if the two suits are consolidated and tried together. 17. It may be important to note here that both the suits are pending before the Wakf Tribunal at Rampur and there is no difficulty in trying them together. 18. Accordingly, the order impugned does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant any interference in exercise of supervisory power. 19. The revision is dismissed with the direction to the tribunal to consolidate both the suits and to try them together so as to avoid parallel trial and conflicting decision. 20. It will be open for the parties to raise all possible objections regarding the maintainability of the suits and the limitation which shall be considered by the tribunal in accordance with law.