JUDGMENT : ARUN BHANSALI, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.09.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Jodhpur (‘the trial court’), whereby the application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs under Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (‘the Act’) read with Section 151 CPC has been accepted and the suit has been ordered to be returned back exercising powers under Order VII, Rule 10 CPC for being presented before the Wakf Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Act. 2. The suit was instituted by respondents-plaintiffs on 18.05.1966 seeking possession of the suit property. 3. As would be noticed, the suit remained pending for over four decades, when an application under Section 85 of the Act came to be filed by respondents-plaintiffs on 07.02.2006, inter alia, with the averments that in view of the provisions of Section 85 of the Act, the Wakf Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter of the suit and, therefore, the suit deserves to be sent to the Wakf Tribunal for trial. 4. The application was contested by the appellants. 5. The trial court by its order impugned dated 11.09.2006, came to the conclusion that the issue raised was covered by judgment of this Court in Syed Inamul Haq Shah v. State of Raj. 2004 (4) WLC (Raj.) 528 and relying on the said judgment, passed the order impugned, ordering for return of the plaint for being presented before the Wakf Tribunal. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the judgment of this Court in the case of Syed Inamul Haq Shah (supra), which has been relied on by the trial court for allowing the application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs stands reversed by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sardar Khan v. Syed Najmul Hasan (Seth), (2007) 10 SCC 727 and the said judgment has been followed in the case of Bhanwar Lal v. Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf, (2014) 16 SCC 51 , wherein it has been categorically laid down that the provisions of Section 85 of the Act would not apply to proceedings, which are pending on the date of coming into force of the Act of 1995 and as admittedly the suit was filed in the year 1966, the order passed by the trial court cannot be sustained. 7. 7. Further submissions were made that the suit for possession also cannot be maintained before the Wakf Tribunal as the said subject matter does not fall within the provisions of Section 6 and 7 of the Act; issues were sought to be raised pertaining to the nature of the property also. It was prayed that the order impugned be set aside. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order impugned. It was submitted that the Wakf Tribunal constituted under the Act has exclusive jurisdiction and, consequently, under Section 9 CPC, the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred and, therefore, the trial court was justified in accepting the application filed by the respondents, which order does not call for any interference. 9. Reliance was placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Akkode Jumayath Palli Paripalana Committee v. P.V. Ibrahim Haji, 2013 (2) WLC (SC) Civil 340 and Board of Wakf, West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begum, 2011 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 204. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. It is not in dispute that the suit was filed way back in the year 1966 and the present application came to be filed by the respondents in the year 2006 relying on provisions of Section 85 of the Act seeking transfer of the proceedings to the Wakf Tribunal. The trial court relying on judgment in the case of Sayed Inamul Haq Shah (supra) of this Court, accepted the application. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sardar Khan (supra) reversed the judgment in the case Sayed Inamul Haq Shah (supra) and laid down in terms of provisions of Section 7(5) of the Act that proceedings pending on the date of coming into force of the Act cannot be transferred to the Wakf Tribunal. It was inter alia laid down as under:— “12. It was inter alia laid down as under:— “12. In exercise of power under Section 83 of the Act, the wakf Tribunal was constituted on 23.2.1997 By virtue of sub-section (5) of Section 7, it clearly transpires that the Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to determine any matter which is the subject-matter of any suit or proceeding instituted or commenced in a Civil Court under sub-section (1) of Section 6, before the commencement of this Act, i.e, if any suit has been instituted in any Civil Court prior to coming into force of The Wakf Act, 1995, then the Tribunal will have no jurisdiction to decide such matter and it will be continued and concluded as if Act has not come into force. 13. Now coming to the facts of the present case, it is an admitted fact that suit was filed on 19.12.1976 before Addl. District Judge, Jaipur and arguments were heard and judgment was received on 16.12.1995 and the judgment was delivered on 23.12.1996 against which the appeal was filed before the High Court on 1.3.1996 Therefore, from these facts it is clear that the suit was pending since 19.12.1976, i.e., prior to the commencement of the Act, i.e., 1.1.1996 Therefore, by virtue of sub-section (5) of Section 7, the Tribunal will have no jurisdiction to decide the suit or the appeal arising from that suit. In the present case, the appeal which was filed by the Respondents (herein) arises out of the Judgment and decree passed by the Addl. District Judge, Jaipur on 23.1.1996 in a suit filed on 19.12.1976 Therefore, the appeal which was filed before the High Court against the judgment and decree passed on 23.1.1996 by the Addl. District Judge, Jaipur, will not be governed by this Act. By sub-section (5) of Section 7, a special provision has been made that on pending suit or proceeding or appeal or review or revision, the Act will not be applicable. In the case of Syed Inamul Hag Shah (supra), the learned Single Judge only considered the effect of Section 85 but did not examine the effect of sub-section (5) of Section 7 and, on the basis of section 85, it was held that all the proceedings which were pending before the Civil Court, the Civil Court will have no jurisdiction. In the case of Syed Inamul Hag Shah (supra), the learned Single Judge only considered the effect of Section 85 but did not examine the effect of sub-section (5) of Section 7 and, on the basis of section 85, it was held that all the proceedings which were pending before the Civil Court, the Civil Court will have no jurisdiction. With great respect, perhaps the attention of the learned Single Judge was not drawn to sub-section (5) of Section 7 which specifically provides an exception that this will not be applicable to the pending suits, appeals and revisions. It has purpose behind it that when Act was made prospective, how can it operate retrospectively, therefore, all pending matters were taken out from purview of this Act. 14. On a conjoint reading of sub-section (5) of Section 7 and Section 85, the result would be that the Act will not be applicable to the pending suits or proceedings or appeals or revisions which have commenced prior to 1.1.1996, i.e., coming into force of the Wakf Act, 1995. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge was not correct in the case of Syed Inamul Hag Shah (supra). Hence, in view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has gone wrong in relying on the decision rendered by the Single Judge in the case of Syed Inamul Hag Shah (supra). Consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for deciding the appeal in accordance with law, expeditiously.” 13. The judgment of Sardar Khan (supra) has been followed in the case of Bhanwar Lal (supra). 14. So for as the judgment in the case of Akkode Jumayath Palli Paripalana Committee (supra) cited by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents is concerned, a bare look at the said judgment would reveal that the suit was filed in the year 2003 i.e. after the Act came into force in the year 1995 and as such the law laid down in the said case would have no application to the facts of the present case in so far as the maintainability of the suit before the civil court is concerned, which suit was filed way back in the year 1966. Similarly, in the case of Board of Wakf, West Bengal (supra), the suit was filed in the year 1999 and as such the said judgment also has no application to the facts of the present case. 15. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed. The order dated 11.09.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Jodhpur is set aside. The parties shall appear before the trial court on 04.12.2017 16. As the suit pertains to the year 1966, it need not be emphasized that the trial court shall proceed with the suit most expeditiously.