VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Nawanshahr vide which the suit filed by the petitioner has been ordered to be transferred to the Additional District Judge, 1st, Nawanshahr being a Tribunal under the Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').
(2.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has challenged the said order primarily on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiff could not be transferred to the Tribunal as under Section 6 of the Act, it is only those persons who are interested in the Wakf are entitled to institute a suit before a Tribunal for the adjudication of controversy. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner even the explanation to Section 6 of the Act does not in anyway improve the position as the person entitled to maintain the suit would be one to whom the notice has been issued and an opportunity of hearing is given to him. So the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the learned Court was not competent to transfer the suit before the Wakf Tribunal. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent while placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court Salman Khan etc. v. Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Chennai and others, AIR 2005 Madras 241 contends that in terms of Section 83 of the Wakf Act, the Tribunal which has all the powers to adjudicate all the disputes and other questions or matters relating to the Wakf or Wakf property, the Tribunal can also go into the controversy whether the property vests in Wakf Board or not.
(3.) HOWEVER , the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Hon'ble Madras High Court has not considered the provisions of Section 6 of the Act and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of The Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan and others, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 289 and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat @ Gram Sabha, 2000(1) RCR(Civil) 283 : 2000(2) PLJ 91.;