1. This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the unsuccessful petitioners-defendants is directed against the common order dated 26.02.2016 of the learned VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, passed in IA. Nos.36 and 37 of 2016 in OS. No.2880 of 2015 insofar as it related to the dismissal of IA. No.37 of 2016 filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, requesting to reject the plaint in OS. No.2880 of 2015 in view of the bar under the Wakf Act, 1995 ( as amended in 2013).

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri Nazir Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants and Sri Gulam Mustafa Rabbani, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. I have perused the material record.

3. The parties in this revision shall hereinafter be referred as to the plaintiff and the defendants for convenience and clarity.

4. At the outset, it is to be noted that the sole plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for perpetual injunction restraining them, their agents, servants and anybody else claiming through them from interfering with the management of the Mosque, that is, the suit schedule property, by the plaintiff in his capacity as President/Muttawali. The suit schedule property as mentioned in the schedule annexed to the plaint is 'Mosque', Jam-e-Masjid Mohammadi, bearing M.C.H. No.19-5-29/3/1 admeasuring 666.00 Sq. yards (100x60) situated at Mahmood Nagar, Co-operative housing society Nandi Muslaiguda Kishan Bagh x road, Hyderabad. The defendants, who are resisting the suit, filed the above applications for rejection of the interlocutory application and also the plaint in the above suit filed by the plaintiff. At the hearing before the trial Court, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced on either side. The learned Junior Civil Judge, by the common order impugned in this revision dismissed both the applications. Aggrieved thereof the present revision petition is filed.

5. Be it noted that since the application for rejection of the plaint would serve the purpose, the common order is challenged insofar as it related to dismissal of the application filed for rejection of the plaint.

6. The case of the defendants in support of the said request, as stated in the affidavit of the 2nd defendant, in brief, is this: - "The plaintiff alleged in the plaint as follows: 'He is the Muttawali of the suit schedule mosque. The said mosque was constructed by his father, Syed Yasin Mohammed Shah. His father earlier acted as Muttawali of the said mosque'. The mosque is a wakf property registered with the Wakf Board as per gazette notification 6- A dated 09.02.1989 and was shown as such at S.No. 2261 of page no.65. The allegations that these defendants interfered with the alleged management of the mosque by the plaintiff is absolutely false. The defendants have lodged a caveat petition stating that there is an elected managing committee and that the 2nd defendant is the President, 1st defendant is the General Secretary and the 3rd defendant is the Treasurer. The suit is barred under the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995, since the dispute relates to a wakf property, which is a registered wakf, and as the subject property is a mosque, Jam-e Masjid Mohammadi. The issue raised in the suit is with regard to the alleged defendants' interference with the management of the mosque by the plaintiff, who is stated to be Muttawali. As the Civil Court is not having inherent jurisdiction in view of the bar under the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1955, and as the Wakf Tribunal is alone having jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the suit, the plaint filed before the Civil Court is liable for rejection."

7. The case of the plaintiff in his counter, in brief, is this: 'The plaintiff's father constructed the suit mosque. The plaintiff's father was the first Muttawali of the said mosque. After his death, the plaintiff has becam