Mahendra Dayal, J.

The short question involved in this second appeal is as to whether suit for permanent injunction is barred under Section 85 of the Muslim Waqf Act, 1995.

2. The appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents for restraining them from removing the door and encroachments made by them behind the shop of the appellant and repair the broken wall of the shop in possession of the appellant over a portion of Nawab Bagh and Qasbe Wala Bagh adjacent with other four shops of the appellant. The appellant has further prayed that the respondents be restrained from interfering in the possession of the appellant over the grove plot No.135/3 situated at Malihabad, Lucknow.

3. The respondent no.1 moved an application, before filing of the written statement, raising a preliminary objection that the subject matter of the suit relates to a waqf property and as such the suit for permanent injunction could be filed before the Waqf Tribunal only and the jurisdiction of the civil court was exclusively barred. The appellant filed written objection and the learned Civil Judge, before whom the suit is pending, found that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit and with this finding the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 07.02.2012 passed by the Civil Judge, the appellant preferred an appeal before the District Judge Court, Lucknow which was heard by Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Lucknow and the learned first appellate Court also dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the trial court.

5. I have heard Shri Govind Saran Nigam, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Shafiq Mirza, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

6. Since the matter involves a short legal question, the second appeal is being finally disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Shri Govind Saran Nigam, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the copy of the plaint which has been placed on record of the second appeal clearly indicates that there was no dispute with regard to the nature of the property. The only relief claimed by the appellant is to the effect that the respondents, who have been arrayed as defendants in the suit, be restrained from removing the door and encroachments made by them behind his shop and from interfering in his peaceful possession over the grove plot No.135/3. He has further submitted that Section 85 of the Waqf Act creates a bar and provides that no suit or other legal proceeding shall lie in any civil court in respect of any disputed question or other matter relating to any Waqf or Waqf property or any other matter which is required by or under this Act to be determined by the Tribunal. The Waqf Tribunal has been constituted under Section 83 of the Waqf Act and the provisions of Section 83(1) clearly provide that the Tribunal is empowered to determine any disputed question or other matter relating to Waqf or Waqf property under the Act. Section 86 of the Waqf Act refers to the appointment of the receiver in any suit.

8. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is a settled principles of law that the jurisdiction of a Court or Tribunal is decided on the basis of the averments made in the plaint or petition. For deciding the jurisdiction of a Court or Tribunal, the authority is not required to examine the defence put forward by the other side. In the instant case, the appellant has not raised any question with regard to creation of the Waqf or the nature of the property and as such only the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit for permanent injunction which has been filed against the private persons and not against the Waqf or its Mutwalli.

9. Shri Shafiq Mirza, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that after the creation of Waqf Tribunal an amendment has been made in the Waqf A