JUDGMENT : Rajasekhar Mantha, J. The revisionist is a defendant in a suit being Title Suit No.358 of 2017 now pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Contai, Purba Medinipur. 2. The suit has been filed by Mutawalli of a waqf property admittedly notified under the Waqf Act, 1995. 3. The plaintiff contended in the plaint that the defendants were claiming a right to hold a Tazia (Muslim Festival) in the said waqf property, which is a graveyard. 4. The defendant, relying upon Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995, filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint since the suit is barred by the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995. 5. Section 83 read with Section 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Waqf Tribunal to adjudicate any dispute or question or matter relating to or arising out of any waqf property or the Waqf Tribunal constituted under the said Act. 6. The suit filed by the plaintiffs/opposite parties is, thus, barred by reason of the exclusive jurisdiction Clause under Section 85 of the Waqf Act. 7. The plaint was indeed liable to be rejected and the Court below fell in error in appreciating the provisions of 1995 Act. 8. In those circumstances, the revisional application succeeds and is hereby allowed. 9. The impugned order is set aside and the plaint in the suit is liable to be rejected. 10. It is clarified that the plaintiffs-opposite parties may institute appropriate proceeding before the Waqf Tribunal to assert any rights contrary to the claims of the revisionist defendant in the suit. 10A. With the aforesaid directions, the instant revisional application shall stand disposed of. There will be, however, no order as to costs. 11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all formalities.