S.M. SHAHID ALAM Vs. JYOTIRANJAN BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the application and refusing to reject the respective plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, the petitioners preferred revision application before this Court.

(2.) The defendants in the Title Suit No.983/2007 on the file of the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court at Alipore, are the petitioners in the present civil revision petition. The above said suit was filed by the predecessor in interest of the opposite parties no(s) 1(a) to 1(e)(herein) against these petitioners (herein) for: (1) decree of declaration of the lease hold right, title and interest of the scheduled property and ownership of the building standing thereon; (2) declaration that the defendants no(s). 1 to 3 of the Mysore Family Fateha Fund Committee have no locus standi to evict the plaintiff and persons claiming through them has no locus standi in this regard; (3) a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants no(s). 1 to 3 of the Mysore Family Fateha Fund Committee and all persons claiming through them from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and his family members in respect of the suit property and (4) cost.

(3.) The revision petitioners/defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC praying for the rejection of the plaint on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and the respondent/plaintiff should have approached the Competent Authority under the Waqf Act, 1995, as there is a bar for entertaining a civil suit in a Civil Court. The said application was resisted by the predecessor-in-interest of the present opposite parties no(s) 1(a) to 1(e)/plaintiff, based on the contention that the father of the plaintiff purchased scheduled land and building in the year 1964 and after his demise the plaintiff became the owner and is in possession. The Waqf Board had no authority to pass order of eviction ignoring the fact that lease in respect of the suit property was executed way back in 1936 with the permission of the learned District Judge.