Civil Revision No. 4070 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 4070 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.11.2009 Haryana Wakf Board ......petitioner Versus Dr.M.Soma Sundra Rao .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. G.S.Sandhawalia, Advocate. for the petitioner. Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction on 7.9.2002. Vide notification dated 25.9.2001, a Tribunal was set up for entertaining all disputes pertaining to the Wakf property. The Tribunal consisted of Additional District Judge-I. An application under order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. Vide the impugned order dated 7.4.2009, the application was allowed and the plaint was rejected. Hence, the Civil Revision No. 4070 of 2009 (O&M) 2 present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, in fact, the suit was liable to be transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge-I and the plaint should not have been rejected. The evidence had already been recorded in this case. The rejection of the plaint means that now the case before the Tribunal will have to be started afresh. In the alternative, learned counsel has submitted that the plaint could have been ordered to be returned to the plaintiff to be presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Athmanathswami Devasthanam v. K.Gopalaswami Ayyangar AIR 1965 Supreme Court 338, wherein it was held that in case the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit then it can order the return of the plaint for presentation before proper Court. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the plaint was liable to be rejected as the suit was not maintainable. Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995 reads as under:- Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts- No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie in any civil court in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to any wakf, Civil Revision No. 4070 of 2009 (O&M) 3 wakf property or other matter which is required by or under this Act to be determined by a Tribunal” During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any provision in the Act, which enabled the transfer of the pending cases in the Civil Court to the Tribunal constituted under the Act. Since, the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the provisions of the Act, the plaint was liable to be returned to the plaintiff instead of being rejected. Accordingly, the plaint is ordered to be returned to the plaintiff. With this modification in the impugned order, the revision petition stands disposed of. (SABINA) JUDGE November 06, 2009 anita