SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J. - (1.) The second defendant in a suit for declaration and consequential reliefs has filed the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order rejecting the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint. The suit was filed for the following reliefs: "(a) A decree declaring that the schedule "B" property is absolutely a Waqf property belongs to Zohra Begum Waqf Estate under E.C. no. 1365; (b) A decree declaring that the Defendants no. 1 to 4 have no right, title, interest over the schedule "B" property in any manner whatsoever; (c) A decree declaring that the so-called mutation of the schedule "B" property effected by the Defendant no. 6 in favour of the Defendant nos. 1 to 4, is illegal and void-ab-initio; (d) A decree directing the Defendant no. 5 7 6 to effect mutation of the schedule "B" property in favour of the Plaintiff; (e) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants no. 1 to 4 and their promoter/developer, men, agents, servants and associates from effecting any sorts of construction upon the schedule "B" property in any manner whatsoever; (f) A decree to recover the Khas possession of the schedule "B" property with the help of the Proforma Defendant nos. 9 & 10; (g) The plaintiff is entitled to get an interim order of injunction restraining the Defendant no. 1 to 4 or their promoter/men/agents/associates and servants or mason from entering into the schedule "B" property and not to carrying on any sorts of construction in the suit premises and also to restrain them from taking away the materials/machinery all ready, placed on the site for effecting construction thereon; (h) Cost of the suit; (i) Such other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff is entitled under the law and equity. "
(2.) The primary contention of the petitioner is that the suit was not maintainable before the Wakf tribunal, since it was not covered by Sections 6 and 7 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1995 Act"). By placing reliance on the said sections, learned senior counsel argues that the suit ought to have been filed before a civil court. It is argued that Section 85 of the 1995 Act creates a bar of jurisdiction of civil courts only in respect of disputes, questions or other matters relating to any waqf property or other matter which is required by or under the Act to be determined by a tribunal. What is to be determined by a tribunal is, in turn, governed by the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the said Act.
(3.) It is further argued that the petitioner also took the objection in the court below that the suit was barred for non-compliance of notices as contemplated in Section 89 of the Waqf Act, Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 586 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act.;