Disputed Wakf character of property requires trial, not rejection under Order VII Rule 11.

The plaintiffs in three suits sought permanent injunction against municipal authorities and Ayub Khan. Khan, impleaded as the third defendant, applied under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaints, arguing that the properties were wakf properties and that the suits were barred by Sections 83 and 85 of the Wakf Act.

The Principal District Munsif Court dismissed the applications, holding that the nature of the properties required determination at trial. Khan challenged those orders in these civil revisions.

1. Whether the plaints could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the properties were wakf properties and the suits were barred by Sections 83 and 85 of the Wakf Act

2. Whether the trial court’s refusal to reject the plaints warranted interference in revision

Order VII Rule 11 CPC provides for rejection of a plaint on the grounds specified in that rule.

The petitioner invoked Sections 83 and 85 of the Wakf Act in support of his objection to the suits. The Court considered the matter under its revisional jurisdiction, referring to Article 227 of the Constitution; it stated that the question whether the properties were wakf properties required consideration by the trial court and could not be decided in the applications to reject the plaints. No precedent was cited.

The Court noted that the concerned wakf was not a party to the suits and that Khan was contesting in his individual capacity, not as the wakf’s representative. In those circumstances, his claim that the properties were wakf properties raised an issue for determination by the trial court, rather than a basis to reject the plaints at the application stage.

The trial court’s orders therefore disclosed no perversity warranting interference.

It left Khan at liberty to raise the wakf-property issue before the trial court, to be decided on the merits and in accordance with law; the connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.