P.S.PATWALIA, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed challenging order dated 8.12.2005 vide which the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Karnal has disposed of an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by the defendants, petitioner in this revision petition. The defendants had prayed by way of said application that under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred as, 'the Act') a Tribunal has been constituted to try and entertain all the matters relating to the Wakf properties by the State of Haryana by notification dated 25.9.2001. It was therefore prayed that since the controversy in the suit relates to the Wakf property, the proceedings before the Civil Court should be transferred to the Tribunal. The application has been rejected by the learned Civil Judge taking a view that notification dated 25.9.2001 would be prospective in nature and it would not apply to the present case since the suit was filed before the aforesaid date and the same could not be transferred.
(2.) BEFORE me learned counsel for the petitioner and the Wakf Board are agreed that the view taken by the trial Court is not correct. Once a Tribunal has been constituted under Section 83 of the Act which is vested with the powers to try all controversies relating to Wakf properties and the present case relates to a Wakf property, the proceedings in the present case should have been transferred to the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inacio Martins (Deceased through L.Rs) v. Narayan Hari Naik and others, 1994(1) RRR 536 (SC) : (1993)3 SCC 123 to contend that under similar circumstances the Court has taken the view and proper procedure to be followed would be the one as outlined in Order VII Rules 10 and 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The relevant observations relied upon by the learned counsel in the aforementioned judgment are as hereunder :- ".....His remedy would, therefore, to be entirely under the Act. This is just by way of an illustration. If such a situation arises what procedure should the court follow in a pending suit which was instituted in a competent court having jurisdiction at the date of its institution. It would seem unfair to non-suit the plaintiff altogether for no fault of his own. We think, in such a situation where the entire dispute falls outside the civil court's jurisdiction on account of the change in law the proper course would be to follow in spirit the procedure outlined in Order 7 Rules 10 and 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure." Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to Section 85 of the Act that jurisdiction of the Civil Court qua adjudication of the claims relating to Wakf properties is specifically barred. In my opinion, this is an additional factor supporting the case of the petitioner that proceedings before the Civil Court should be transferred to the Tribunal constituted under the Act.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid, the revision petition is allowed and order dated 8.12.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Karnal is set aside. The proceedings are ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Act. Petition allowed.;