1. The first defendant in O.S.No.102 of 2005 before the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’), Hyderabad, is the petitioner. The judgment and decree dated 05.04.2007 in the aforesaid suit decreed by the tribunal is questioned on various grounds including competency of the first and second respondents/plaintiffs and on merits on the ground that the suit schedule property is not a wakf property as projected by the respondents/plaintiffs.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the gazette notification dated 01.02.1990 issued by the Government, marked as Ex.A2, does not relate to the suit schedule property. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supports the impugned judgment by relying upon Ex.A2 aforesaid and the findings reached by the tribunal in its judgment.

3. Paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment shows that the respondents/plaintiffs initially filed O.S.No.875 of 2000 before the Principal District Judge, Warangal and later it was made over to II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, where the issues were framed and the oral and documentary evidence on behalf of both sides was recorded. The said Court also took note of the fact that during the pendency of the suit, the law relating to jurisdiction of the court has undergone a change and the plaintiff himself contended before the trial Court as recorded in para 6 of the judgment that if the Court comes to the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the plaint may be returned. The Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff also contended that in case the Court comes to the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction due to change in law, the plaint may be either rejected or dismissed.

4. The said Court, thereafter, delivered judgment in the suit O.S.No.875 of 2000 and held under issue No.1 that in view of the decision of this Court in (MAHBOOB KHAN v. MOHD. KHAJA AND OTHERS [2005 (1) ALD 839]) that the wakf tribunal is the only forum for determination of any disputed question or other matter relating to wakf or wakf property including the suit for permanent injunction. Accordingly, it had under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 returned the plaint for presentation before proper forum on the ground that it does not have jurisdiction. The said judgment and decree of the trial Court is dated 16.08.2005 and thereafter, on 12.09.2005 the plaint was presented before the tribunal. It appears that the suit was numbered as O.S.No.102 of 1995 and posted to 14.11.2005 for plaintiffs’ evidence. The tribunal records in para 3 as under:

‘…Issues were already framed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Warangal. The parties led their evidence in the old suit when the suit was pending before II Additional District Judge, Warangal and did not chose to lead evidence before this tribunal. The tribunal was pleased to hear arguments of both sides”.

Thereafter, the tribunal considered the issues 1 and 2 and proceeded to decree the suit.

5. During the hearing of this revision petition, the legality of the procedure adopted by the tribunal was doubted by this Court and both the learned counsel were asked to address on that aspect.

6. While the learned counsel for the petitioner states that in several suits, which are now presented before the wakf tribunal, this question is repeatedly arising and the procedure as followed in this case is being followed, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that both parties consented that the evidence already led in the suit while it was before the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, be treated as evidence in this suit and therefore, justifies the procedure adopted by the tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondents also points out that after constitution of the tribunal, some suits, pending before various Courts, falling within the jurisdiction of the tribunal are transferred to the tribunal and in some suits, the plaints were return