The main legal principle established is that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, Revenue Court, and other authorities in respect of any dispute relating to a waqf property is barred by Section 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995.

JUDGMENT :

Prasenjit Biswas, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the application and refusing to reject the respective plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, the petitioners preferred revision application before this Court.

2. The defendants in the Title Suit No.983/2007 on the file of the Court 3rd of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court at Alipore, are the petitioners in the present civil revision petition. The above said suit was filed by the predecessor in interest of the opposite parties no(s) 1(a) to 1(e)(herein) against these petitioners (herein) for: (1) decree of declaration of the lease hold right, title and interest of the scheduled property and ownership of the building standing thereon; (2) declaration that the defendants no(s). 1 to 3 of the Mysore Family Fateha Fund Committee have no locus standi to evict the plaintiff and persons claiming through them has no locus standi in this regard; (3) a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants no(s). 1 to 3 of the Mysore Family Fateha Fund Committee and all persons claiming through them from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and his family members in respect of the suit property and (4) cost.

3. The revision petitioners/defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC praying for the rejection of the plaint on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and the respondent/plaintiff should have approached the Competent Authority under the Waqf Act, 1995, as there is a bar for entertaining a civil suit in a Civil Court. The said application was resisted by the predecessor-in-interest of the present opposite parties no(s) 1(a) to 1(e)/plaintiff, based on the contention that the father of the plaintiff purchased scheduled land and building in the year 1964 and after his demise the plaintiff became the owner and is in possession. The Waqf Board had no authority to pass order of eviction ignoring the fact that lease in respect of the suit property was executed way back in 1936 with the permission of the learned District Judge.

4. The learned Trial Judge, after hearing both sides, by an order dated April 19, 2013, sustained the objection raised by the plaintiff, rejected the contention of the revision petitioners (herein)/defendants and dismissed the said application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. The said order is challenged in the present revision.

5. Mr. Ganesh Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court has materially erred in rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. It is submitted by the learned Advocate that the learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated and/or considered the relevant provisions of the Waqf Act, more particularly Sections 83 and 85 of the said Act.

6. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the civil suit is not maintainable and therefore the case squarely falls within Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC and therefore the learned Trial Court ought to have rejected the respective plaints in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. In support of the above submission, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has heavily relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rashid Wali Beg Vs. Farid Pindari and others reported in (2022) 4 SCC 414.

7. So far as Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code is concerned, it is submitted by Mr. Saptangshu Basu, learned senior counsel on behalf of the opposite party no.1 that plaint be rejected relying upon the statements made therein. It is submitted that on perusal of the plaint, it clearly appeared that mixed question of law and facts have arisen and when the Court is required to go into the facts of the case, the plaint could not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of