( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 147 OF 2008 Mohammad Bahauddin s/o. Ziauddin Kazi .. Applicant Versus The Chief Executive Officer .. Respondent Maharashtra State Board of Wakf Shri S.K. Shinde, Advocate for the applicant. Shri M.B.W. Khan, Advocate for sole respondent. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 13.08.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri S.K. Shinde for the applicant and Adv. Shri M.B.W. Khan for sole respondent. This Revision Application is directed against the order passed by the Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Appeal No. 2 of 2006, on 11.08.2008. The present Revision Applicant was the appellant and he challenged inclusion of property as Wakf property, as per the report of survey effected under Section 4 of the Wakf Act, 1994. According to him it is joint family property. The learned Tribunal held that the appeal under Sections 6 & 7 of ( 2 ) the Wakf Act is not maintainable against the relief claimed. After hearing both sides and after considering Sections 6 of the Wakf Act, 1995, I am of the opinion that whether a particular property specified as wakf property in the list of wakfs is wakf property or not, is question which should be decided by the Tribunal in a suit and the suit should be filed before expiry of one year from the date of list of Wakf under Section 5 of the Wakf Act, 1995. In the facts and circumstances of the case in my considered opinion, the Wakf Tribunal did not commit any error in holding that the present revision applicant should have filed suit and not appeal. 2. The learned advocate for the applicant cited case of Jagdish Balwantrao Abhyankar and ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1994 Bombay 141. In para 21 it is laid down by the Full Bench that sometimes it does happen that an application is filed under a particular provision of a statute and it is found to be not maintainable thereunder or the Court or Tribunal has no power to grant the relief asked for thereunder, but the said application is maintainable under some other provision of the statute before the same Court or Tribunal and it has power to grant the relief asked ( 3 ) for, it is in such cases that it has alwasy been held that the “label” or the “nomenclature” of the application or petition should not matter and after seeing the substance or contents of the application, if it is possible to grant the relief under some other provision of the statute, such a relief should not be denied to a party. 3. In this case Adv. Shri Shinde suggested that his appeal should have been treated as suit by the Wakf Tribunal. The pleadings in an appeal, so also relief clause in an appeal are different from the format of suit and the prayers. Adv. Shri Shinde also stated that the proviso under Section 6 (1) of C.P.C. would come in his way. In my opinion, if the appeal is filed within time, in that case revision applicant can have benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, this Revision Application deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the Revision application is dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/AUG09/cra147.08