IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.282 OF 2009 Between: Ammerullah (died) and others .....PETITIONERS AND Syed Moinuddin and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.282 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”), is directed against the order, 21.11.2008, in I.A.No.672 of 2008 in O.S.No.42 of 1988, on the file of I Additional District Judge, Adilabad, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C., to implead respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein/proposed parties as defendants in O.S.No.42 of 1988, was allowed permitting respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein to come on record as proper and necessary parties in the array of defendants and further held that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and the Tribunal alone is the competent authority to adjudicate the issues involved in the case. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Insofar as impleading of respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein as defendants in the suit is concerned, it is not seriously challenged before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners herein. The question to be decided in this revision petition is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the civil Court has got jurisdiction to try the suit? 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision of this Court in P. Rama Rao v. High Court of A.P.[1], wherein it is held thus: “It is true as pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General and also the learned Counsel for the petitioners, on the plain language of Section 85, the bar against the entertainment of suit seems to arise on and from the date of the commencement of the Act. The moment the Act came into force, the bar operates, prima facie. The fundamental postulate of Section 85 read with the other relevant provisions is that the Wakf Tribunal shall be a substitute for the Civil Courts in respect of matters required to be dealt with by the Tribunal under the Act. The scheme of the Act contemplates and unfolds the intention of the Legislature in clearest terms that the obliteration of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and the creation of the Tribunal to take over the exclusive jurisdiction confided to it is a simultaneous process. No vacuum or hiatus could have been intended by the Legislature. The delay in the constitution of the Tribunal just as it has happened in this State, would not have been foreseen by the Legislature. Surely, it could not have been the intention of the Legislature that the existing remedy or recourse to Civil Court should be extinguished as a first step and that remedy should be made available only when the Wakf Tribunal is set up. What should be the remedy of the aggrieved party or institutions of Wakf during the intervening period? Should they indefinitely wait in order to pursue their remedy till the State Government issues a notification constituting the Tribunal? In the instant case, the Tribunal was constituted I years after the Act came into force which is fairly a long period. If the aggrieved persons or institutions are left without any remedy to move the Court or a judicial body during this period, absurd and unintended results would follow. Such consequences are manifestly contrary to the legislative intention. Not only that, even the provision i.e., Section 85 would be vulnerable to attack on the ground of infringement of Article 14 inasmuch as a particular class of litigants would be left without remedy to prevent invasion of their rights recognized by law on account of sheer delay in constituting the Tribunal. Obviously, such construction should be avoided. Literal interpretation should yield to purposive construction and a construction which preserves the Constitutionality of the provision. The fact that the provision for transfer of cases from the Civil Court to the Wakf Tribunal is not provided for in the Act is also a pointer to the legislative intention that the suits filed earlier to the constitution of the Tribunal shall continue to be dealt with by the Civil Court. We are therefore of the view that in the interests of imparting rationality to the provision and accomplishing the legislative object, Section 85 has to be qualified by the words “after the constitution of the Tribunal” immediately after the words “should lie”. No doubt by doing so, the literal construction is eschewed and certain words which are really implicit are read into the Section. But such reading and interpretation is not an impermissible exercise. As long back as in 1955, the Supreme Court in Tirath Singh vs. Bachittar Singh laid down that in order to avoid absurd and anomalous consequences, there could be addition or modification of the words.” A litigant having a grievance of a civil nature has a right to institute a civil suit in a competent civil Court, unless its cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred by any statute. 5. The suit was filed for recovery of possession by the petitioners/plaintiffs. In view of the fact that the petitioners are claiming the property as a private property, they filed the suit. At that point of time, the Court has to see primarily, basing on the allegations made in the plaint, whether that has to be accepted as correct or not. As seen from the allegations in the plaint, it is clear that the petitioners are claiming right, title and interest in the property in individual capacity. Therefore, the question that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and the Tribunal alone is the competent authority to decide the issue involved is not sustainable. Hence, the impugned order is set aside insofar as the finding that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the issue involved in the case is concerned. 6. No doubt, a wakf Tribunal was constituted in the year 1997 to decide inter alia whether a particular property is a wakf property or not. The cause of action in the suit arose even prior to constitution of wakf Tribunal. As on the date of lis, it is the civil Court which has got jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes which are in civil nature. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the decision of this Court as referred to above is the answer to conclude that the civil Court has got jurisdiction. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, to the extent indicated above. Since the suit is of the year 1988, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J February 17, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.282 OF 2009 February 17, 2011 [1] 2000 ALT (1) 210