ORDER

1. The applicants/defendants have filed this Civil Revision under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order dated 28.7.2021 passed by First Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, Class-II, Morena (M.P.) in Civil Suit No.160-A of 2020 whereby their application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC has been rejected by the learned Trial Court.

2. For convenience the applicants are referred as 'defendants' and respondent No.1 is referred as 'plaintiff' in this order.

3. The facts which are not in dispute are that the plaintiff has filed a suit for eviction against the defendants in the court of First Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, Class-II, Morena (in short 'Civil Court'). The property in question is a Waqf Property is also not in dispute between the parties. On being summoned, the defendants appeared and filed the present application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that since the property in question is a Waqf Property, the Civil Suit before the Civil Court is not maintainable and the remedy to the plaintiff lies before the Waqf Tribunal constituted under the provisions of Waqf Act, 1995 (in short 'Act'). The plaintiff opposed the prayer and prayed for rejection of the application.

4. The learned Trial Court vide impugned order has rejected the application and has held that civil Court will have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction. While rejecting the application, learned trial Court has placed reliance upon the apex Court judgment in the case of Faseela M. v. Munnerul Islam Madrasa Committee & Anr. reported in AIR 2014 SC 247 and in the case of Ramesh Gobind Ram (dead) Through LRS v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Waqf reported in (2010) 8 SCC 726 . Being aggrieved by rejection of their application, the applicants are before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the rejection of their application by learned trial Court is ex-facie illegal inasmuch as section 83 of the Act confers exclusive jurisdiction to entertain even a suit for eviction of a tenant, to the Waqf Tribunal. He further submitted that section 85 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil Courts in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to any Waqf, Wafq Property or other matter which is required by or under the Act to be determined by the Tribunal. He further submits that the reliance over the judgment rendered in the case of Faseela (supra) & Ramesh Gobind Ram (supra) by the trial Court is misconceived inasmuch as both the judgments have been later on clarified by the apex Court in the case of Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari and Ors. reported in (2022)4 SCC 414.

6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand supports the impugned order and submitted that the judgment rendered in the case of Faseela (supra) & Ram Gobind Ram (supra) were binding upon the learned trial Court and the application has been rightly rejected. He submits that the apex Court in the aforesaid two cases has categorically held that the suit for eviction would lie before the Civil Court only. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the present civil revision.

7. Considered arguments and perused the record.

8. Before adverting to the facts of present case, it is profitable to refer to certain provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995. Section 83 of the Act provides for constitution of Tribunal and also defines the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain various disputes. Section 83(1) being relevant is reproduced hereunder:

"83. Constitution of Tribunals, etc.— (1) The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute as many Tribunals as it may think fit, for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a waqf or waqf property, eviction of a tenant or determination of rights and obligations of the lessor and the lessee of such property, under this Act and define the local limits and jurisdiction o