( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 138 OF 2008 Dinanath s/o. Ramprasad Tiwari .. Applicant Versus Deokiben w/o. Kanhaiyalal Shah and ors. .. Respondents Shri Deepak Padwale, Advocate for the applicant. Shri D.K. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 9. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 13.08.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri Deepak Padwale for the revision applicant and Adv. Shri D.K. Kulkarni for respondent Nos. 2 to 9. This Civil Revision Application is filed being aggrieved by the dismissal of Application Exh.126, under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code r/w Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995, in Regular Civil Suit No. 943 of 2000, which came to be rejected by 5th Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad by its order dated 29.08.2008. ( 2 ) 2. Present Revision Applicant is defendant No.1 in Regular Civil Suit No. 943 of 2000, which is the suit filed by the plaintiff for possession of the encroached portion. It is case of defendant No.1 that neither the plaintiffs nor their predecessor in title had any title over the suit property which they claimed and it is Wakf property. In order to substantiate said say, Assal Shetwar extract of 1993 Fasli was produced on record. 3. It is case of present Revision Applicant that the property claimed by the plaintiffs was in-fact Wakf property and the issue whether the property is Wakf property or not cannot be decided by the Civil Court and the application Exh. 126 was given for rejection of plaint. The plaintiffs claim that it is their individual property and not Wakf property. Original suit is for possession of encroached portion and in the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant relief of possession of encroached portion, though it may not have jurisdiction to decide whether particular property is Wakf property or private property. In such case at the most it ( 3 ) can be said that the Civil Court will have to refer such issue, if raised by the pleadings and if not already decided, to the Wakf Tribunal under the Wakf Act, 1995. In this view of the mater it cannot be said that the rejection of application Exh.126 by the learned Civil Judge is in any way wrong or incorrect. It is rightly held that it is not case where plaint should be rejected. 4. With these observations, this Civil Revision Application is dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/AUG09/cra138.08