HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:6200 OF 2010 Dated: 24.12.2010 Between: A.P. State Wakf Board. ..Petitioner And Moulanagar Residents Welfare Association, Moulanagar, rep., by its President, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, and others. .. Respondents This Court made the following HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:6200 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to revise the order, dated 4.2.2005 passed in I.A.No.745 of 2004 in O.S.No.109 of 2002 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The petitioner-1st defendant filed the above application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC seeking to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit is filed for declaration that the decree in O.S.No.709 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada obtained by the State Wakf Board is not binding upon them and for consequential injunction restraining the Board from executing the said decree and that the present suit filed after constitution of Wakf Board Tribunal, Hyderabad, is not maintainable under Section 85 of the Wakf Act. The Court below dismissed the said application. Hence, the present revision has been filed. Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record. It is relevant to note that in a case of this nature, the apex Court in a judgment rendered in Ramesh Gobindram (dead) by LRs Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf[1] while overruling the judgments of this Court in T. Shivalingam V. A.P. Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad and others (1999(3) ALD 646= 1999(3) ALT 602; P. Rama Rao and others V. High Court of A.P., rep., by Registrar (Vigilance) and others (2000(1) ALD 298= 2000(1) ALT 210; Jai Bharat Co-operaive Housing Society Limited V. A.P. State Wakf Board , Hyderabad (2000(5) ALD 743) and Syed Muneer V. Chief Executive Officer and others (2001(4) ALD 430) held as follows: “Nothing in Section 83 to suggest that it pushes the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts extends beyond what has been provided for in Section 6(5), Section 7 and Section 85 of the Act. It simply empowers the Government to constitute a Tribunal or Tribunals for determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property which does not ipso facto mean that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts stands completely excluded by reasons of such establishment. It is noteworthy that the expression “for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property” appearing in Section 83(1) also appears in Section 85 of the Act. Section 85 does not, however, exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in respect of any or every question or disputes only because the same relates to a wakf or a wakf property. Section 85 in terms provides that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court shall stand excluded in relation to only such matters as are required by or under this Act to be determined by the Tribunal. The crucial question that shall have to be answered in every case where a plea regarding exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is raised is whether the Tribunal is under the Act or the Rules required to deal with the matter sought to be brought before a Civil Court. If it is not, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not excluded. But if the Tribunal is required to decide the matter the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would stand excluded.” The present suit is filed to declare a particular decree obtained by the Wakf Board in O.S.No.709 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada is not binding upon them. As the provisions of Section 85 of the Wakf Act provides that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court shall stand excluded in relation to the matters as are required by or under this Act to be determined by the Tribunal. However, it does not mean that simply because the issue relates to the Wakf Board, the same has to be dealt with by the Tribunal in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision. In this view of the matter and in view of the nature of the suit, the approach of the Court below as to the maintainability of the suit in a Civil Court, does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the CRP is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy Date: 24th December, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:6200 OF 2010 24.12.2010 [1] 2010(6) ALD 76 (SC)