Order

1. The present civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant (non-applicant No. 1) challenging the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the Rajasthan Wakf Board, Jaipur, in T.I. Application No.77/2025 (Majalise Hamdardane Kaum Merti Silawatan, Jodhpur vs. Jodhpur Development Authority & Ors.), whereby application for temporary injunction filed by respondent No. 1– applicant has been allowed with a direction to the non-applicants (Jodhpur Development Authority and Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur) to maintain status quo in respect of the disputed site pending final adjudication of the suit.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the tribunal has erred in granting temporary injunction without the plaintiff establishing the essential requirements of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. It is submitted that no prima facie right or title is made out, as the exchange deed dated 22.10.1966 does not cover the disputed garden and the plaintiff has not specifically claimed ownership or title over the said land.

4. Drawing attention of this Court to the Deed of Exchange, learned counsel for the appellant submits that disputed garden/ green land enclosed by iron railing has been shown as one of the neighbourhoods in directional dimensions and was not part of the property given in exchange. It is, thus, argued that there was no basis for so-called entry in the Wakf Register.

5. It is further submitted that the tribunal has failed to consider objections regarding its lack of jurisdiction and the denial that the property is a Wakf, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. It is argued that a suit seeking only an injunction, without a declaration, is not maintainable. It is also contended that impugned order effectively grants final relief at the interim stage, which is not permitted.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the respondent-plaintiff has not established possession, as no document evidencing delivery of possession of disputed garden has been produced, while revenue records show that the property is in the name of the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur.

7. It is further submitted that no irreparable injury would occur, as the installation of an idol would not alter the nature of the property. It is argued that the tribunal has failed to balance equities and could have conditioned the interim relief.

8. Lastly, it is contended that the property does not become Wakf merely by the exchange deed. Since the respondent-plaintiff has failed to satisfy the legal requirements for an injunction, the grant of temporary injunction is unsustainable in law. It is submitted that impugned order is, thus, non-speaking and ignores material objections.

9. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LR’s and others reported in (2008) 4 Supreme Court 594 as well as decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in Bheru Lal vs. Addl. District Judge, Ramganj Mandi, Kota & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2201/2013) decided on 10.05.2013.

10. In contrast, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff contends that the plaintiff has placed on record exchange deed dated 22.10.1966, the Wakf register and a site map, which prima facie indicate that disputed garden forms part of or is appurtenant to the Wakf property and has been in use and maintenance by the plaintiff for a long period.

11. It is further submitted that even settled or lawful possession is sufficient to seek protection by way of injunction and the plaintiff has demonstrated long-standing use and enjoyment of the

property. It is contended that any alteration, construction or installation would permanently affect the nature of the property and defeat the very purpose of the suit, causing irreparable injury.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the