Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29140 Court No. - 8 Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 19 of 2013 Revisionist :- Waqf.No.19 Dargah Sharif Hazrat Syed Salar Masood Ghazir.H. Opposite Party :- Anil Kaul And Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Waseeq Unndin Ahmad,Mohammad Aslam Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Shastri Pd.Tripathi,Rishabh Tripathi,Sameer Kalia Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Waseeq-ud-deen Ahmad and Shri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and Shri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the private-respondents. 2. The instant revision has been preferred by the plaintiff- revisionist assailing the order dated 06.11.2012, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bahraich acting as Wakf Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal'). 3. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist had instituted a suit on behalf of Wakf seeking declaration and injunction. It was stated in the plaint that the disputed property belonged to the revisionist Wakf and the property could not have been alienated. 4. The private-respondent No.2, who is a subsequent purchaser moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The main contention of the learned counsel for the respondents was that on attack was made to a sale-deed dated 05.08.2011 and such a relief can be granted only by the Civil Court and not by the Wakf Tribunal. 5. It is in the aforesaid context that an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was considered by the trial Court, who noticed the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Wakf Act, but went on to hold that as the defendant himself had stated that earlier the property was wakf, but later, it was sold out for a valuable consideration not only in 2011, but also in the year 2021 and even though in terms of Sections 83 and 85 of the Wakf Act, the orders passed by the Tribunal may attain finality as per the Act, but nevertheless it is for the Courts to see as to whether a proceeding would lie before the Tribunal when normally reliefs such as that of cancellation is granted by the Civil Courts. 6. It is in this context that the trial Court noticed that a declaratory decree is granted in terms of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and such a relief cannot be granted by the Wakf Tribunal. Consequently, the plaint was rejected by means of the order dated 06.11.2012, which is under challenge before this Court. 7. Learned Senior counsel for the revisionist has primarily submitted that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it is only the plaint averments and the documents filed in support by the plaintiff which can be looked into and no amount of defence can have any bearing while considering the issue of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 8. It is urged that if the plaint is seen, it would indicate that it was specifically stated that the property in dispute belonged to Wakf and the sale-deed executed in favour of the private- respondents in the year 2011 itself was bad and thus a decree of declaration has been sought along with a relief for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession or changing the nature of the property. 9. It is urged that there was no material to indicate that any averment in the plaint, prima-facie, gave rise to any conclusion that the plaint was barred by any law. In absence of any averment in the plaint by which such an inference can be drawn, the plaint could not have been rejected. 10. It is also urged that it is not open for the trial Court while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to adjudge the questions involved which are mixed questions of fact and law and the Court is not required to ascertain whether the plaintiff will or will not be granted the relief claimed in plaint at this stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The premise upon which the Court rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is dehors and settled proposition of law as such the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 11. Shri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the private-respondents has refuted the aforesaid submissions and has pointed out that the aforesaid revision is not maintainable as there is no order by which the revisionist has suffered any prejudice. 12. It is urged that the Tribunal has refused the entertain the plaint rather left it open for the revisionist to approach the Civil Court for the remedy and for the said reason, it cannot be said that the revisionist has suffered any prejudice, hence, the revision deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. 13. It is also submitted that a remedy of declaration can only be granted by a Civil Court and not by the Tribunal, hence, to that extent, the order passed by the trial Court cannot be faulted. 14. It is further urged that the Apex Court in Bhanwar Lal and others v. Rajasthan Board of Muslims Wakf and others, Civil Appeal No.7902 of 2013, decided on 09.09.2023, has held that the remedy of cancellation of a sale-deed can be tried by the Civil Court and it is not covered by Section 6 and 7 of the Act, whereby any jurisdiction is conferred upon the Tribunal to decide such an issue and relief of possession can be granted only by the Civil Court, hence, applying the said principles to the instant revision, it would indicate that the plaintiffs are challenging the sale-deed, accordingly, such a relief can only be granted by the Civil Courts and the order impugned does not suffer from any error and the revision deserves to be dismissed. 15. The Court has heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 16. It is now too well settled to be disputed that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it is only the plaint averment alone which can be looked into. The plaint has to be taken as a whole and paragraphs or sentences cannot be culled out in isolation. While deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is not required to go for formal reading of the plaint rather it is meaningful reading of the plaint which is required. The plaint averments have been taken as they are and nothing can be substituted, added or deleted. 17. In the aforesaid backdrop, if the plaint is noticed, it would indicate that there is clear averment that the property in question was that of Wakf and then in the plaint it is indicated chronological, event and as to how the property has been treated and later sold out in the year 2011. There is a clear averment in the plaint that the deed dated 05.08.2011 is bad as the Wakf property could not have been sold out and that too extent a declaration has been sought. 18. It will be relevant to point out that whether a relief can or cannot be granted will dependent on the final outcome of the case but it cannot be held that merely because a relief of declaration has been sought which is granted by the Civil Courts in terms of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, consequently, the plaint is to be rejected. The Tribunal has been vested with the powers and acts as a Civil Court and it has powers akin to that of a Civil Court where the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable. Whether the property is a Wakf or not; whether the property has been properly sold out; whether any rights have accrued to the defendant. These are all issues which can be considered and decided after the exchange of pleadings and after appropriate issues are framed and evidence lead. There may be a situation, where upon exchange of pleadings, certain preliminary issues arise, in such a situation, the Court is justified to first try and decide the preliminary issues which can curtail the time taken to complete fulfledged trial, however, this course of action necessarily cannot be adopted by the Court at the initial level without there being any specific or clear averment indicating either, absence of a subsisting cause of action or that the plaint is barred by any law. 19. 19. In this background, the findings recorded by the trial Court that since a decree of declaration has been sought which is granted usually by the Civil Courts, hence, the plaint has been rejected, may not be the correct manner in which the trial Court has appreciated the contentions, the plaint and reasoned to reject the plaint. 20. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the revisionist did not suffer any prejudice has no substance for the reason that the jurisdiction of Court or the Tribunal is decided on the basis of the averments contained in the plaint alone. At this stage, it is not the duty of the Court to see whether upon the trial, any relief can be granted or not that is the subject matter of final determination and not while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Even if one of the reliefs are cognizable by the Tribunal or a forum, even then the plaint cannot be rejected in part. 21. For the said reasons, the very fact that the plaint of the revisionist has been rejected gives a right to the revisionist being an aggrieved person to challenge the said order. 22. So far as the decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondents in Bhanwar Lal (supra), it would reveal that the observations of the Apex Court was in context of final decision where a suit for cancellation had been filed. 23. As noticed above, while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it is the plaint averment alone and in the manner they stand has to be seen. Since, no relief of cancellation has been sought, so the Court could not have treated the relief for declaration as that of cancellation. As both have different connotation in law. Hence, for the said reason, the decision of the Apex Court in Bhanswar Lal (supra) does not come to the aid of the respondents. 24. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the clear view that the impugned order dated 06.11.2012, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bahraich cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The plaint shall stand restored on the Board of the Wakf Tribunal concerned, where the parties shall appear on 27.05.2025 and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. 25. It is made clear that any observation made by this Court may not be treated as an expression or opinion on merits of the case of either of the parties. It shall be open for the parties to raise their all objections before the trial Court, shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. 26. With the aforesaid observations, the revision is allowed. Costs are made easy. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Rakesh/- Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench