Under the Wakf Act, matters relating to the removal of Mutawallis are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and Civil Courts lack jurisdiction to entertain such disputes.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal raises a short question relating to jurisdiction under the following circumstances :

( 2 ) A suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration to the effect that the letter No. 2426 dt. 22-4-1987 of the defendant through which the management committee of the plaintiff was dissolved and plaintiff No. 2 was removed from the post of Adhyakshya was illegal and it be set aside. A relief for injunction was also claimed restraining the defendant from interfering in the functioning of the plaintiff and removing him from the post of Adhyakshya. It was alleged that there was an Id Gah at Thandi Sadak, Morar which was known as Morar Id Gah. It was registered under the M. P. Wakf Act 1954 with the M. P. Wakf Board. Plaintiff Was Prabandhak of the Id Gah Committee and Mutawalli for the last 10 years and had been performing his duties as Mutawalli. Several litigations were going on with respect to the property of the Id Gah and he had been doing Pairawi. Several compromises were also entered into and the plaintiff obtained a sum of Rs. 20,000/- out of those compromises. That amount was spent in the constructions of shops. On 1-12-1986, the plaintiff received a notice, which was replied. Certain persons bore enmity with the plaintiff and wanted to remove him and take possession over the Id Gah and its committee. They taking the office bearers of the defendant under their pressure, got the Committee of the plaintiff No. 1 dissolved and it was directed that the plaintiff No. 2 shall give charge to another person vide letter received by the plaintiff on 1-5-1987. This notice was illegal. No intimation was given to him nor any opportunity was given to him of being heard. An application for issue of temporary injunction was also given. The defendant did not file any written statement but filed an application purporting to be one under S. 55c of the Wakf Act read with S. 151, CPC and prayed that the suit be dismissed, as the Court had no jurisdiction.

( 3 ) THE learned trial Court by its order dated 24-2-1988 passed an order that the question would be determined after framing of issues. The defendant can take that plea in the written statement. It, therefore, rejected the application and directed the case to be listed for further proceedings. A revision petition was preferred against the order which was allowed on 15-7-1988 and it was specifically held that it was not necessary that written statement be filed. Reliance was placed on Dilip Singh v. Malam Singh, 1986 Cur Civ LJ 240: (AIR 1986 Madh Pra 270 ). The revising Court directed the trial Court to hear both the parties on the question of jurisdiction and decide it in accordance with law. The learned trial Court thereafter heard the parties and decided the question of jurisdiction on 4-2-1989 holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. It, therefore, dismissed the suit. The plaintiff unsuccessfully preferred appeal and has now knocked the doors of this Court in second appeal.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant firstly argued that because the procedure prescribed under S. 43 of the Wakf Act has not been followed, the Civil Court under the circumstances has got the jurisdiction S. 55c cannot be a bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under the circumstances. He placed reliance on Dhulabhai v. State of M. P. AIR 1969 SC 78. Another contention of the learned counsel is that without filing the written statement, the question of jurisdiction cannot be raised and in this connection he placed reliance on Naresh Saxena v. President Adarsh Nagrik Sahkari Bank, 1984 WN SN 44 and Moolchand v. N. K. Satsangi, 1992 Jab LJ 340. Learned counsel for the respondent did not appear and hence he could not be heard.

( 5 ) AS far as the first argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, we must look to the authority of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant as mentioned above. In the said authority of Dhulabhai (AIR