The court upheld the Tribunal's ad-interim injunction order due to the satisfied prima facie case, reinforcing the need for procedural fairness in interlocutory applications.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The 2^nd respondent in W.O.S. No.52 of 2025 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’, in short), Kozhikode, filed this M.F.A. challenging the ad-interim order of injunction dated 16.09.2025 passed by the Tribunal in I.A. No.2 of 2025 in that W.O.S.

2. W.O.S No.52 of 2025 is filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein, seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the appellant and respondents 4 to 11 from interfering with the administration of the 1^st respondent Wakf. Along with the suit, respondents 1 to 3 filed Annexure A7 interlocutory application, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, seeking a temporary injunction restraining the appellant and respondents 4 to 11, who are arrayed as defendants 1 to 9 in the suit from interfering in the administration and management of the 1^st respondent Wakf, till the disposal of the suit.

3. On 16.09.2025, when the suit and the injunction application came up for consideration, the Tribunal passed the impugned ad-interim order of injunction, which reads thus.

“This is a petition filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure , to grant an interim injunction.

2. Heard. Perused the affidavit and documents. We are satisfied that the petitioners have made out a prima facie case. If the injunction is not granted, it will cause irreparable injury to the petitioners. Issuance of notice will defeat the purpose by delay. Hence dispensed with.

3. Respondents 1 to 9 are restrained by an order of injunction from interfering with the administration and management of the 1^st plaintiff by the elected office bearers until further orders.

Comply Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. For return of notice -

07.10.2025.”

4. Being aggrieved by the said ad-interim injunction order passed by the Tribunal, the appellant approached this Court with this MFA.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs in the suit and the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Wakf Board. Considering the nature of the appeal, issuance of notice to the remaining respondents is dispensed with.

6. The grievance of the appellant is that the impugned ad-

interim order of injunction was issued by the Tribunal without giving an opportunity to the appellant to put forward his contentions on merits. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a prima facie case was not made out by the plaintiffs in the suit to get an ad-interim order of injunction, and the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside since the legal possession of the office of the committee is not with respondents

1 to 3/plaintiffs in the suit.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 stoutly opposed the aforesaid contentions of the appellant and submitted that it is relying on the averments in the affidavit filed in support of Annexure A7 interlocutory application and considering the materials on record, the Tribunal passed the impugned order.

8. We have carefully perused the impugned order of the Tribunal. From the said order, we notice that the Tribunal granted an order of ad-interim injunction, after being satisfied from the affidavit filed in support of Annexure A7 application and from the documents produced along with the suit, that respondents 1 to 3 herein have made out a prima facie case. After passing the ad-

interim order of injunction, the Tribunal issued notice to the respondents therein and posted the matter for their appearance on 07.10.2025. Instead of approac