The main legal point established is the interpretation of the phrase 'no suit or other legal proceedings shall lie' in Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995, to include pending suits, leading to the bar on the jurisdiction of Civil Courts.

V. S. KOKJE, J.

( 1 ) THESE two revision petitions arise from the same suit and since the decision of S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1376/97 may affect the decision of S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1409/97, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided together.

( 2 ) S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1376/97 arises out of an order passed by the Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 83/97 on 16-7-1997 rejecting appeal against an order dated 2-7-1997 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 366/97 whereby he had returned the plaint for presentation to proper Court, holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred as Section 85 of the Act would also apply to pending suits. S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1409/97 arises out of an order passed in the aforesaid suit rejecting an application for marking the document as exhibit.

( 3 ) IT would be appropriate to take up for consideration S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1376/97 first. It raises the point as to the jurisdiction of the civil Court to continue to try a suit filed prior to coming into force of the Wakf Act, 1995 (in short act ). Section 85 of which provides that no suit or other legal proceedings shall lie in any civil Court in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to any wakf property or other matter which is required, by or under the Act, to be determined by a Tribunal established under the Act.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 85 of the Act cannot be given retrospective effect by applying it to pending suits. According to him in the relevant provisions, the words "shall lie" would mean that no proceedings can be instituted after the coming into force of the Act if the subject matter of the suit or proceeding is required to be dealt with by the Tribunal established under the Act. On the contrary, the contention of the non petitioner is that the words "shall lie would mean also "shall be continued" and therefore, the bar contained in Section 85 of the Act would apply to pending suits or proceedings also.

( 5 ) SECTION 85 of the Act reads as under : "85. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts. No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie in any Civil Court in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to any wakf, wakf property or other matter which is required by or under this Act to be determined by a Tribunal. "

( 6 ) IT was not disputed before me that the subject matter of the suit was cognizable by a Tribunal established under the Act and no suit on the same cause of action could have been filed after the coming into force of the Act.

( 7 ) IN Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, Twelfth Edition, while discussing the retrospective operation of statutes in the light of English case law, it has been observed that, upon the presumption that the legislature does not intend what is unjust rests the leaning against giving certain statutes a retrospective operation. They are construed as operating only in cases or on facts which come into existence after the statutes were passed unless a retrospective effect is clearly intended. It is a fundamental rule of English law that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act, or arises by necessary and distinct implication. Quoting from Re-Athlumney (1898) 2 QB 551 it was observed that a retrospective operation is not to be given to a statute so as to impair an existing right or obligation, otherwise than as regards matter of procedure, unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment. If the enactment is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation, it ought to be construed as prospective only. The Statute is not to be construed so as to have a greater retrospec