Mool Chand Garg, J.- This appeal raises a substantial question of law as to whether the Civil Courts have jurisdiction under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to direct framing of scheme with respect to a management of the Wakf Property despite existence of the Wakf Board and Wakf Tribunal in the State.

2. To appreciate the controversy, it would be appropriate to take note of the prayer made by the appellant, who filed an application under Section 92 of the CPC for grant of leave for instituting a suit under Section 92 of the CPC against Mr. Abdul Moeed, Chief Mutawali, Hamdard (Wakf) Lab, Mr. Hammad Ahmed, Senior Mutawali, Hamdard (Wakf) Lab, Mr. Abdul Majid, s/o Mr. Abdul Moeed, Mutawali, Hamdard (Wakf) Lab., Mr. Asad Moeed, S/o Mr. Abdul Moeed, Mutawali, Hamdard (Wakf) Lab., Mr. Hamid Ahmed, s/o Mr. Hammad Ahmed, Mutawali, Hamdard (Wakf) Lab, Delhi Wakf Board, through Executive Officer, Delhi Wakf Board, Near Bachhon ka Ghar, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002.

3. In the application filed under Section 92 of the CPC besides alleging various acts of mismanagement on the part of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, it was pleaded that the entire facts and circumstances as stated above clearly establish that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in blatant breach of trust/Wakf are acting detrimental to the interest of Wakf and defeating the very purpose of the Wakf for which it was created. The mal-administration, malfeasance, malappliction of funds, siphoning of funds by illegally selling the Wakf properties warrants immediate and urgent indulgence of this Court and appropriate directions of this Court are deemed necessary for the proper administration of Hamdard (Wakf) Lab. Therefore, directions of this Court in the nature of removal of present Mutawalis, appointment of new Mutawalis, direction of accounts and inquiries of Hamdard (Wakf) Lab regarding maladministration, malfeasance, misapplication and siphoning of funds and Wakf and appropriate directions to the Delhi Wakf Board for taking all actions as per the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act') are also required in the facts and circumstances of the case. Furthermore, a scheme is also necessary to be settled by this Court for achieving the object and purpose of Hamdard (Wakf) Lab in the larger interest of the public/beneficiaries/trustees of the Hamdard (Wakf) Lab.

4. With the aforesaid assertions, following prayers were made in the application:

In the premises set out hereinabove, it is, prayed to this Court that in the interest of justice, equity and fair play, this Court may-

(a) grant leave to the applicants to institute suit under Section 92, CPC against the abovementioned defendants for seeking the relief as mentioned in para No. 15 above.

(b) Pass any other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. The application was contested by the respondents by filing reply who raised preliminary objections to the grant of leave by submitting that the petition as framed is not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioners have alleged that Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) is a Wakf within the meaning of Wakf Act, though this is not conceded/ admitted by the respondents. The petition as such is barred by Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995.

6. The learned ADJ dismissed the application under Section 92 of the CPC moved by the appellant by passing the impugned order dated 30.7.2005.

7. In the impugned order after taking note of Section 94 of the Act read with Section 83(2) and Section 85 of the Act it was held that in view of the special law available to deal with certain situations and aspects for monitoring the maintenance of Wakf property and the management thereof, Civil Courts would have no jurisdiction to frame scheme as prayed for which is the purpose of moving the application under Section 92 of the CPC. It would be appropriate at this stage to take note of the provisions contained under Sections 94, 83 (