Civil Revision No. 5875 of 2003 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5875 of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.12.2010 Mahijit Singh and others .....Petitioners Versus The Punjab Wakf Board and others .….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Jai Shree Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri Sunil Garg, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present petition is to the judgment and decree passed by the Wakf Tribunal on 3.9.2003, whereby suit filed by the petitioners for declaration that the suit property is not a Wakf Property, was dismissed. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugar Humayun Mirza Wakf, (2010)8 SCC 726, has examined the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short the ‘Act’) and returned a finding that the matters falling within Section 6 and 7 of the Act alone [ 1] Civil Revision No. 5875 of 2003 (O&M) are required to be decided by the Tribunal and that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not excluded in all other cases. It was held to the following effect: - A plain reading of the above would show that the Civil Court’s jurisdiction is excluded only in cases where the matter in dispute is required under the Act to be determined by the Tribunal. The words “which is required by or under this Act to be determined by Tribunal” holds the key to the question whether or not all disputes concerning the wakf and wakf property stand excluded from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Whenever a question arises whether “any dispute, question or other matters” relating to “any wakf or wakf property or other matter” falls within the jurisdiction of a civil Court the answer would depend upon whether any such dispute, question or other matter is required under the Act to be determined by the Tribunal constituted under the Act. If the answer be in the affirmative, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would be excluded qua such a question, for in that case the Tribunal alone can entertain and determine any such question. The bar of jurisdiction contained in Section 85 is in that sense much wider than that contained in Section 6(5) read with Section 7 of the Wakf Act. While the latter bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court only in relation of questions specified in Sections 6(1) and 7(1), the bar of jurisdiction contained in Section 85 would exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts not only in relation to matters that specifically fall in Sections 6 and 7 but also other matters required to be determined by a Tribunal under the Act. In the present case, the plaintiff-petitioners have claimed title over the suit property. There is no dispute falling within the ambit of Section 6 and 7 of the Act. Therefore, the subject matter of the suit is not required to be determined by the Tribunal. Consequently, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be said to be barred, as the Wakf Tribunal does [ 2] Civil Revision No. 5875 of 2003 (O&M) Learned counsel for the respondent-Wakf Tribunal, has argued that since the Wakf Tribunal was not possessed of the jurisdiction to entertain the suit, therefore, the plaint should be returned to the plaintiffs rather than permitting the trial Court to decide the suit on the basis of evidence and documents on record. Since the Wakf Tribunal is presided over by a member of Superior Judicial Services, I am of the opinion that the evidence recorded by such Court should be used. It would avoid expenses & delay in decision of lis. The ends of justice would be met, if the pleadings, evidence and documents on record are examined by the Civil Court from the stage, anterior to the final judgment and decree so as to cut down the delay and costs in proving the respective contentions of the parties. The petitioners have filed CM No. 22411-CII of 2003 for permission to lead additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. It shall be open to the petitioners to move an appropriate application before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court shall consider and decide any such application, in accordance with law. In view of the above, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Wakf Tribunal on 3.9.2003 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Court of learned District Judge, Ferozepur. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Ferozepur, on 24.1.2011. The learned District Judge, shall entrust the suit to the Court of competent jurisdiction. Such entrusted Court shall expeditiously decide the suit, preferably within of six months from the date the parties appear before the said Court. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 13-12-2010 ds [ 3]