IMPORTANT POINT
In a proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2A of Code, principles of criminal law as to manner of appreciation of evidence should apply.

Anil K. Narendran, J.—The petitioners, who are defendants 1 and 4 in W.O. S.No. 18 of 2016 on the file of the Waqf Tribunal, Ernakulam, are before this Court in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking for an order to direct the said Tribunal to try the said suit along with I.A.No.57 of 2017 filed by respondents 1 to 11 herein, the plaintiffs in that suit, under Order 39, Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking for an order to prosecute the defendants in that suit, the petitioners and respondents 13 to 28 herein, for wilful violation and disobedience of Ext.P2 order of injunction granted by the Tribunal on 10.5.2016 in I.A.No.159 of 2016.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants 1 and 4 before the Tribunal.

3. The first petitioner is Madavana Masjidul Badariya Jama-ath and the second petitioner is its Secretary. Going by the averments in the original petition, the first petitioner is in possession and management of the waqf properties consisting of juma masjid, niskara pally, madrassa and khabersthan, etc. The waqf is registered with the Kerala State Waqf Board with registration No.B9-5915/RA and the administration of the waqf is carried out by a Jama-ath Committee consisting of 18 members. The plaintiffs, who are the mahal members filed W.O.S. No.18 of 2016 before the Tribunal, seeking for a declaration that, juma prayer should be conducted in the usual practice followed in the waqf from time immemorial, i.e., the khatheeb should enter into the mimber prior to juma bank and thereafter he should start his jumu’a kuthuba in Malayalam in two sessions along with ham’d, swalat, dua, etc., as per usual practice and same will be followed by two rak’ath of juma namaz as decade long practice, custom, stipulation in bye-law and that, defendants 1 to 18 have no manner of right or authority to change the original mode of juma kuthuba against the above custom, practice and belief hitherto followed in any manner whatsoever.

4. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A. No.159 of 2016 seeking for an ad interim injunction. In the said interlocutory application filed under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code, the Tribunal passed Ext.P2 ad interim order of injunction dated 10.5.2016, restraining defendants/respondents 1 to 18, their men, agent, khatheeb, imam or any person under them from changing the mode of juma kuthuba in the plaint schedule property, waqf/jama-ath hitherto followed in any manner whatsoever as per the decade long practice, custom and bye-law of the waqf.

5. Alleging wilful disobedience of Ext.P2 order of ad interim injunction, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.57 of 2017 under Order 39, Rule 2A of the Code, seeking for an order to prosecute the defendants/respondents 1 to 16 for their willful violation and disobedience of Ext.P2 order. The said interlocutory application is supported by an affidavit sworn to by the second plaintiff on his own behalf and on behalf of other plaintiffs, narrating the alleged acts of willful violation/disobedience of Ext.P2 order of ad interim injunction by the defendants/respondents 1 to 16.

6. Subsequent to the filing of the said interlocutory application, the plaintiffs moved this Court in O.P. (Wakf) No. 24 of 2017 seeking for an early disposal of W.O.S.No.18 of 2016 as well as Ext.P3 interlocutory application. The said original petition was disposed of at the admission stage itself by Ext.P4 judgment dated 3.4.2017 and the same reads thus;

“The petitioners confined their relief to an early consideration of Ext. P3 Interlocutory Application pending with the Wakf Tribunal, Ernakulam. Without pronouncing anything on merits, we direct the Wakf Tribunal to dispose of Ext. P3 application within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that the party shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing before orders are passed.”

7. Subsequent to Ext.P4 judgment, defendants 1 to 6 and 8 to 16