THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4140 of 2011 ORDER: 1 This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, who is defendant No.2 in O.S.No.54 of 2009 pending before the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad. First respondent herein filed the said suit for eviction of the petitioner from the Wakf property. In the aforesaid suit, the petitioner herein filed an application in I.A.No.45 of 2011 under Section 151 C.P.C. seeking for dismissal of the said suit on the ground that the Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the same in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Gobindaram (dead) through L.Rs Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf[1]. 2 In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while interpreting the provisions under Section 6 (5), 7, 85 and 83 of the Wakf Act has held with regard to the disputes regarding eviction of tenants from the Wakf properties are excluded from the scope of the Wakf Act, 1985. In the same judgment, it is clearly held that the bar is no complete so as to extent to other questions that may arise in relation to Wakf property. 3 In this case, it is to be noticed that the petitioner had tried to set up his own right with regard to the property and could not succeed before the civil court. Even in the present proceedings also, he is not claiming any tenancy. In that view of the matter, he cannot seek dismissal of the suit on the ground of jurisdiction. It is also to be noticed that, earlier, the petitioner filed I.A.No.292 of 2009 for rejection of the plaint, which was also ended in dismissal and the same was confirmed by this court in CRP No.5665 of 2009. Hence, this court is of the view that the judgment relied on by the counsel for the petitioner is of no help for his claim for dismissal of the suit at this stage. 4 For the aforesaid reasons, and in view of the reasons given by the Tribunal below, I see no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and accordingly this revision is dismissed as devoid of any merit. No order as to costs. -------------------------- R.Subhash Reddy, J. 05.11.2011 Kvsn [1] 2010 (5) ALT 36 (SC)