J.B. Koshy, J.

Whether a civil court has jurisdiction to continue to adjudicate a pending suit after introduction of S. 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995 is the question referred by a learned Single Judge of this court to the Division Bench.

2. Before dealing with the question of law referred, we may refer to the facts of these cases. A predecessor of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.20780 of 2005 filed a civil suit (O.S.No.764 of 1992) before the Munsiff's Court, Palakkad. Some interim orders were also passed by that court. When S.85 of the Wakf Act was introduced with effect from 1.1.1996, the suit was returned by the civil court. The petitioner challenged the same which resulted in Ext.P1 judgment (reported as Abdul Rahiman Musaliar Mohammed Sahib (2002 (3) KLT 742). The S.L.P filed against the above decision was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as can be seen from Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)No.20780 of 2005. The Learned Single Judge held that civil court has no jurisdiction only in matters wherein the Wakf Tribunal was given specific powers to adjudicate, but, other matters can continue to be agitated in the civil court. It was also held that only if the entire subject matter of the suit pertains to matters squarely coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, civil court shall cease to have jurisdiction to adjudicate such proceedings. Hence following direction was given:

"There is no finding here as to whether there are any other issues which are specifically required to be decided by the Tribunal under the Act. The suit as a whole cannot be said to be one falling outside the jurisdiction of the civil court, for the reasons already mentioned above, hence it would be proper for the court below to consider various issues arising in the case and if it finds later that any such issues required to be decided by the Tribunal under the Act, then it will be open to the court below to take recourse to the option pointed out by the Apex Court as aforesaid for referring that particular issue to the Tribunal and after such decision is received to decide the case fully. Hence, it is for the court below to frame issues and advert to each of them and see whether any particular issue is required to be decided by the Tribunal and if so, to refer the same alone for the decision of the Tribunal."

Thereafter, court directed the civil court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. Interim directions issued were allowed to continue. Accordingly, suit was proceeded by the civil court, but, meanwhile, the original plaintiff died and the petitioner who is the eldest son filed an impleading petition and the above impleading petition and amendment application were allowed by Ext.P1 (produced in W.P. (C)No.8743 of 2005). The objection that civil court has no jurisdiction to decide the same was not accepted because of Ext.P1 inter parte decision in Abdul Rahiman Musaliar v. Muhammed Sahib (2002 (3) K.L.T. 742), It is the contention of the petitioners in W. P. (C) No. 8743 of 2005 that the above order was passed without jurisdiction as decision of the learned Single Judge in Abdul Rahiman 's case (supra) is overruled by a Division Bench of this Court in a subsequent decision in another case (Pookoya Haji v. Cheriyakoya (2003 (3) K.L.T 32)). The Division Bench held that wordings of S.85 of the Wakf Act are very wide so as to cover entire disputes concerning Wakf and Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the matters relating to any Wakf or Wakf property and, therefore, S.85 completely debars civil court jurisdiction with regard to disputes regarding the Wakf or Wakf property. Even though Ext.P1 is an inter parte judgment, as it was overruled by this court and the present accepted position of law is that suits regarding matters connected with Wakf and Wakf property can be filed only before the Tribunal and not before the civil court, we are of the view that petitioners in W. P. (C) No.8743 of 2005 were justified in raising the question of jurisdiction a