ORDER 1. Instant appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellants against the impugned order dated 27.10.2009 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, No.2, Bharatpur, (hereinafter to be referred as the "appellate Court"), whereby application under Order 7 Rule 10 of C.P.C. filed by the respondent-Board had been allowed and the appeal of the appellants had been returned back to file the same before the competent Court. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent-Board filed a petition before the Estate Officer under the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964 seeking eviction of the alleged wakf property stating therein that the appellants are in unauthorized occupants thereupon. The aforesaid proceedings were admittedly filed in 1992. The Estate Officer vide its order dated 24.02.2001 allowed the petition of the Board and ordered to vacate the premises and further handover the possession of the same to the Board with a further direction to make payment of rent from 1981 to 1986 @ Rs.1000/- per month and further mesne-profit for the use and occupation @ Rs.1000/- per month till delivery of the possession. Against the aforesaid order of the Estate Officer, an appeal under Section 9 of the Act of 1964 was filed by the appellants before the competent Court of District Judge, which was transferred to A.DJ. No.2, Bharatpur for hearing. On appearance, the Board filed an application under Order 7 Rule 10 of C.P.C. The appellants filed reply to the aforesaid application on 30.07.2009. The appellate Court had allowed the application filed by the respondent-Board and returned the appeal to file the same before the competent Court. Hence, this miscellaneous appeal. 3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 of C.P.C. are not applicable at appellate stage and that too in an appeal under Section 9 of the Act, 1964 and not arose out of civil suit. The impugned order (Annexure-4) is illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 7 (5) of the Wakf Act, 1995 and also in disobedience of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sardar Khan & Others Vs. Syed Najmul Hasan (Seth) & Others, reported as 2007 D.N.J. (S.C.) 434 and also against the Circular of this Court dated 02.09.1997, hence, the appeal of the appellants be allowed. Syed Najmul Hasan (Seth) & Others, reported as 2007 D.N.J. (S.C.) 434 and also against the Circular of this Court dated 02.09.1997, hence, the appeal of the appellants be allowed. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has also placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajender Bansal and others Vs. Bhuru (Dead) through Legal representatives and Others, reported as (2017) 4 S.C.C. 202 . 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board has opposed the appeal and submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned appellate Court be upheld. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the material available on record. 6. Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995 reads as under :- "85. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts.- 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." 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Khan & Others (Supra) observed as under :- "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 reserved on 16.12.1995 and the judgment was delivered on 23.01.1996 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. 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. 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." (Emphasis supplied) 8. In the present case, initially, an appeal had been filed by the appellants before the learned District Judge, Bharatpur challenging the order dated 24.02.2001 passed by the Estate Officer (Wakf), Jaleb Chauk, Jaipur in Suit No.346/1992. The said appeal was later-on transferred to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, No.2, Bharatpur, who passed the impugned order dated 27.10.2009 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.78/2005. 9. The said appeal was later-on transferred to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, No.2, Bharatpur, who passed the impugned order dated 27.10.2009 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.78/2005. 9. Thus, aforesaid appeal had been filed after commencement of the Wakf Act, 1995 challenging the order of the Estate Officer (Wakf), Jaleb Chauk, Jaipur dated 24.02.2001. Hence, learned appellate Court had not committed any error an illegality in passing the impugned order dated 27.10.2009. 10. The judgment in the case of Rajender Bansal and others Vs. Bhuru (Dead) through legal representatives and Others (supra) relied upon by the appellants fails to advance the case of the appellants as the appellants' case is based on different facts. 11. In view of the above, no ground for interference is made out, hence, the appeal is dismissed. 12. All pending applications stand disposed of.