JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - In the year 1945 a mission was founded by Sri Ram Chandraji of Shahjahanpur called Sri Ram Chandra Mission. It was named after Mahatma Ram Chandraji Maharaj of Fatehgarh who is stated to have founded a spirtual system called the Raj Yoga' intended to help people in attaining sprituality through yogic methods suiting the needs of the time and capacity of an ordinary house-holder. Sri Ram Chandraji of Shahjahanpur was accepted as successor and representative of Mahatma Ram Chandraji of Fatehgarh. The Mission founded by Sri Ram Chandraji of Shajahanpur was to fulfil the sacred task of propagation of a spritual system called 'Sahaj Marg' designed to help a house-holder in attaining spirtual benefits through an easy way. The Mission was duly registered under the Societies Registration Act with its headquarter at Shahjahanpur. For the smooth running of the Mission the founder got its constitution and the bye-laws drafted and registered. In course of time the Mission acquired considerable property and its following grew far and wide, both within the country and abroad. 2. The founder Sri Ram Chandraji Maharaj of Shahjahanpur died on April 19, 1983. The defendant-appellant no. 1 Sri Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari claims to have been duly appointed under a deed dated March 23, 1974 by the founder of the Mission as his representative and successor to act as the head and president of the Mission. He further claims that the working committee of the Mission at its meeting held at Hyderabad on December 27, 1983 recognised his appointment as the president of the Mission consistently with the wishes of the founder as expressed in his declaration embodied in the aforesaid deed, dated March 23, 1983. 3. On the basis of his appointment both by the founder as the president of the Society and the resolution of the working committee the defendant-appellant no. 1 was performing the functions and duties cast upon the president of the Mission until the present suit was instituted on December 26, 1983 at Shahjahanpur. The relief claimed in the suit was that the defendant-appellant no. 1 be restrained from acting as the president of the Mission or from declaring himself as such president or otherwise interfering in the affairs of the Mission. The suit was filed by three individuals. The plaintiff-respondents nos. The relief claimed in the suit was that the defendant-appellant no. 1 be restrained from acting as the president of the Mission or from declaring himself as such president or otherwise interfering in the affairs of the Mission. The suit was filed by three individuals. The plaintiff-respondents nos. 1 and 2 claimed to be working as preceptors in the Mission while the third plaintiff respondent professes to be an Abhayasi or a follower of the Mission. It was filed against three persons, namely, Sri Parthasarathi Rajagopalachari, Sri Kashi Ram Agarwal, the Joint Secy. of the Mission and Sri S. A. Sarnad, the Secretary of the Mission who were arrayed respectively as defendants nos. 1 to 3. 4. Very shortly, the plaint allegations are that the defendant no. 1 was never appointed as the President of the Mission by Sri Ram Chandraji, the founder. However, on the basis of some document purporting to have been signed by the founder on March 23, 1974, he was falsely declaring himself as the successor of the Maharaj (the name by which the founder is known amongst his followers). Taking advantage of some blank papers signed by the Master in the year 1974 during his illness the defendant no. 1 has fabricated the deed dated March 23, 1974 by which it is alleged that the Master had named him as his representative and successor to act as the President of the Society after his death. After regaining health and remembering that he had signed some blank papers, the Master executed a registered will in the year 1976 so as to prevent somebody using those papers against the Mission. The defendant no. 1 kept silent throughout the life-time of the Master and it was only after the death of the latter that the defendant no. 1 began to declare himself as the successor of the founder. The defendant no 1 is out to gray the properties of the Mission. He is also not possessed of those spiritual powers which may inspire the amount of reverence which the followers of the Mission expect of the head of the Mission. On these assertions the plaintiffs filed the suit with the relief mentioned above. 5. Along with this suit the plaintiffs also filed an application for ad interim injunction in the same terms supported by a short affidavit. On these assertions the plaintiffs filed the suit with the relief mentioned above. 5. Along with this suit the plaintiffs also filed an application for ad interim injunction in the same terms supported by a short affidavit. On this application the court below passed an ex parte injunction by an order dated January 4, 1984 restraining the defendants from interfering in the working of the Mission and the defendant-appellant no. 1 from acting or declaring himself as the President of the Mission. 6. The defendant no. 1 filed an objection (Paper no. 28-C) along with an affidavit (Paper no. 33-C) against the injunction order. Another affidavit supporting the claim of the defendant no. 1 was filed by defendant no. 3 Sri S. A. Sarnad, the Secretary of the Mission. In their objections and affidavits, the defendants, apart from raising various legal objections as to the maintainability of the suit and the grant of ad-interim injunction based on Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act and Order XXXIX, Rule 2(2) (as amended by U.P. Act no. 57 of 1976 prohibiting the court from granting ad interim injunction, the effect of which is to interfere with the internal management of a Society). The defendants pleaded that the defendant no. 1 had been validly authorised by the Master himself by means of a formal deed dated Marcn 23, 1974, and in deference to the wishes of the Master even the working committee of the Mission has, by a resolution dated December 27, 1983, recognised him as the President of the Mission. The defendant no. l;was hence competent to act as the President of the Society till he is replaced by another President appointed by a competent authority. It was also stressed that the plaintiffs were not claiming any right in themselves to manage the affairs of the Society nor do they say who else is entitled to act as the President of the Society if the defendant no. 1 is not the President. Under the circumstances the welfare of the Society would be seriously prejudiced if defendant no. 11 restrained from acting as the president. The allegations of fraud, forgery or fabrication contained in the plaint against the defendant no. 1 were emphatically refuted by the defendant who asserted that the deed evidencing the authorisation in favour of defendant no. Under the circumstances the welfare of the Society would be seriously prejudiced if defendant no. 11 restrained from acting as the president. The allegations of fraud, forgery or fabrication contained in the plaint against the defendant no. 1 were emphatically refuted by the defendant who asserted that the deed evidencing the authorisation in favour of defendant no. 1 by the Master was a perfectly valid and genuine piece of document and the allegations to the contrary were false and unfounded. The defendants also asserted that the plaintiffs are but a proxy for Sri P. C. Saxena, the son of the Master who had tried to impose his son Sri Sharad Saxena as its president, contrary to the wishes of the Master, at the various meetings of the working committee held between July 10, 1983 and October 23, 1983. 7. The defendants also pleaded that the nomination of a spiritual representative or conferment of the authority on the spiritual representative after the demise of the Master who was the Divinity himself was not justiciable. The opinion of the Master in this behalf could not be the subject-matter of a suit. The Master had full authority and power to choose from amongst his own disciples his spiritual representative and the same was not a matter which was justiciable in a court of law, not being a dispute of a civil nature. Further, throughout his life-time the Master had the completest and most implicit faith in the defendant no. 1 and in recognition of the success which he had attained in the field of spirituality and the propagation of the message of the Master, had conferred on the defendant no. 1 a power of making preceptors which the Master had always reserved to himself and not conferred on any other of his disciples. Numerous letters were filed in support of this assertion in which the Master, right up to the end of his life recognised the presence of great spiritual merit and power in defendant no. 1. It was hence false to assert that the defendant no. 1 has fabricated the aforesaid document dated March 23, 1974 and was falsely declaring himself as the spiritual successor of the Master. 8. The Court below has, by the impugned order, overruled the objections of the appellants and confirmed to ex parte interim order granted on January 4, 1984. Aggrieved by this order the defendants nos. 1 has fabricated the aforesaid document dated March 23, 1974 and was falsely declaring himself as the spiritual successor of the Master. 8. The Court below has, by the impugned order, overruled the objections of the appellants and confirmed to ex parte interim order granted on January 4, 1984. Aggrieved by this order the defendants nos. 1 and 3 have filed this appeal. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am clearly of the opinion that the court below has fallen into a serious error in granting ad interim injunction. The order passed by the court below proceeds on premises which are factually incorrect and are based on patent misreading of the evidence on record. The court below has also not exercised its discretion properly and has allowed the application of the plaintiff-respondents without fully realising the implications of the injunction issued by it. 10. The defendant no. 1 has claimed the right to exercise the powers of the president of the Mission on two grounds :- (1) the authorisation said to have been granted by the Master himself through the document dated March 23, 1984 (paper no. 15 C/8); and (2) the resolution passed by the working committee of the Mission on December 27, 1983. 11. The authorisation reads as follows : "I hereby nominate my disciple Sri P. Rajgopalachari as my representative to work for the Mission as President in the Sahaj Marg system. As long as live, I will be doing my job. Afterwards he will enjoy the fulfledged authority given by the Constitution and bye-laws of the Mission." May God's grace shower through him to all mankind. Sd/- Ram Chandra President Shri Ram Chandra Mission, Shahjahanpur, U.P. 23rd March, 1974, (India) 12. This authorisation was stated to have been dispatched to defendant no. 1 by means of a letter dated March 19/23, 1974. A portion of this letter is relevant as certain conclusions have been drawn by the court below on an interpretation of the same, and the same reads as follows : "I have issued a certificate which I am sending with this letter. Preserve this certificate as a valuable document. You start work giving transmission to the East and West and helping the man throughout the world. The work bestowed upon me by Nature and the Master will be coming to you sometimes after. Preserve this certificate as a valuable document. You start work giving transmission to the East and West and helping the man throughout the world. The work bestowed upon me by Nature and the Master will be coming to you sometimes after. Your approach is the central region and almost all of these Sixty five points are illumined, I Absorbancy is itself coming fastly to welcome you." 13. The genuineness of the deed of authorisation dated March 23,1974 has been challenged in the suit and the short affidavit filed in support of the injunction application In course of the arguments before me, however, counsel for the plaintiffs confined his attack to demonstrating that though the deed of authorisation was signed by the Maharaj (or Master as he was addressed by counsel), the contents thereof were not those of the Master. The contention was that the deed has been manufactured by the defendant and support certain circumstances were pointed out. 14. Before, however, I deal with those circumstances I may briefly point out the material which has been furnished by the defendants to show that the authorisation was genuine and valid. With the affidavits filed by the Respondent nos. 1 and 3 numerous letters written by the Master dating from 1971 right H to the time when the Master was being admitted to the hospital in 1982 have been annexed which contain a most unequivocal and categorical declaration by him of his completest faith in defendant no. 1. These Letters disclose that increasingly the defendant no. 1 was rising in the estimation of the Master who was transferring gradually extraordinary powers on the defendant no. 1 concerning the affairs of the Mission. These letters show that the Master had come to repose complete trust and confidence in defendant no. 1 and this was so both before the making of authorisation in favour of the defendant no. land till long afterwards and right up to the end. 15. Thus on September 25, 1971 the Master conferred on the defendant no. 1 the unprecedented power of appointing preceptors at the canter at which he was working (vide Annexure A to the affidavit of defendant no. 1). land till long afterwards and right up to the end. 15. Thus on September 25, 1971 the Master conferred on the defendant no. 1 the unprecedented power of appointing preceptors at the canter at which he was working (vide Annexure A to the affidavit of defendant no. 1). Annexures B and C to the said affidavit also reflect the same sentiments and esteem in which the defendant was held by the Master Annexure D is a letter written in 1974 by the Master to the defendant no. 1 in which he writes : "To night dated 31st August you will find yourself at the third ring of splendour. You please note in your diary. There comes the time when calmness is lost in itself and I am waiting for that time. When you cross all the rings then will see if should take 'Koshas'." Annexure E is a letter dated July 13,1977 in which the Master writes to the defendant no. 1 in the same vein indicating increasing faith and trust in the defendant no. 1. In the letter dated March 27, 1980 the Master writes," lam happy to see that you are in touch with the Divine. It is self-explanatory and good." The letter dated November 21, 1981 (Annexure G) is even more revealing and it reads : - "You have not realised what you are and your worth to the Mission. My hopes are in you. Now should convince you that you are now the part of my very existence - believe me." (emphasis added). 16. Then there are letters by which the Master authorised the defendant no. 1 to operate bank accounts and conferred upon him other financial powers. There is then the letter dated July 7, 1982 which is said to have been written by the Master before going to the hospital. It reads : "My Dearest Parthasarathy, I am committed to go to Paris in August 1982 and you will help me as you have helped me in all respects." 17. The above-mentioned letters reveal a state of affairs which completely negative the suggestion that the Master was unhappy with Sri Parthasarathy or that Sri Parthasarathy had fallen from grace of the Master. The above-mentioned letters reveal a state of affairs which completely negative the suggestion that the Master was unhappy with Sri Parthasarathy or that Sri Parthasarathy had fallen from grace of the Master. On the contrary, they prima facie, show that right up to the end Sri Parthasarathy continued to enjoy absolute trust and confidence of the Master and was held by the latter in the highest esteem. 18. If the document dated 23rd March, 1974 had stood by itself and in isolation one might have viewed it with certain reservation as to its genuineness. But in view of the whole mass of material adduced by defendant no. 1 disclosing that the Master was conferring increasing powers on defendant no. 1 treating him already in his life-time as his spiritual representative. I find no justification for not accepting the genuineness of the deed of authorisation for the purpose of the injunction matter and rejecting the same as a manufactured document on the more ipse dixit of the plaintiff-respondents. 19. For the purpose of ad interim injunction in my opinion, it would be perfectly legitimate to assume the genuineness of this document till the plaintiffs prove to the contrary by some clinching circumstance established by some cogent and convincing evidence which they have failed to do so far. 20. As I shall presently demonstrate the circumstances which have been pointed out by the court below and urged on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents, do not, reflect, prima facie, on the genuineness of the authorisation. 21. Once, therefore, it is assumed for the purpose of the matter of injunction that authorisation by the founder in favour of the defendant no. 1 was genuine, it would, in my opinion, be a clear abuse of the process of court to issue ad interim injunction restraining him from performing his duties cast upon him as the President of the Mission by the founder. The defendant no. 1 is purporting to exercise the powers and duties as the spiritual representative of the founder of the Mission and no one could be more zealous of the interests of the Mission than the Master himself and under these circumstances the plaintiffs cannot be granted injunction the effect of which would be to negate the wishes of the very Master and founder of the Mission by whom the plain tiff's profess to swear. 22. 22. Coming to the evidence on which the genuineness of the document was doubted by the court below and was sought to be challenged before me by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents, the first circumstance pointed out is that in the registered will dated December 29, 1976 (Paper no. 13-C) which was executed by the Master in 1976 in favour of his sons it was recited in the preamble that during his illness he had signed some blank papers which might be used for manufacturing a will in regard to his properties. This document lends no support to the plaintiffs. The will was written in respect exclusively of the personal properties of the Master. There is not even a whish per in this will about the properties or affairs of the Mission. The authorisation in favour of the defendant no. 1 does not purport to be a will and it could not hence even remotely have been in the mind of the Master while writing the will executed in 1976. 23. The second circumstance is a declaration which is attributed to the Master and is stated to have been made at a congregation of the Mission held at Surat in the year 1982 stating that he was grooming up a young man of 19 years to be his spiritual successor. The court below has repeatedly stressed this circumstance as showing that till that date the Master bad not named his spiritual representative. This is a palpable misreading of the evidence. The statement was not made by the Master as was conceded by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents. It is, however, alleged that the statement was made by the Secretary of the Mission at the said congregation in which the Master was present and consequently it should be taken to have received his approval. 24. 1 am unable to agree. The mere presence 1 of the President at the meeting could not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it was the statement of the Master himself. In any case, the Secretary has filed an affidavit in these very proceedings in the court below in which he has taken a categorical stand that the authorisation made by the Master in favour of defendant no. 1 in 1971 was genuine and it was not changed till the end of his life. That provides a complete answer to this argument. 25. 1 in 1971 was genuine and it was not changed till the end of his life. That provides a complete answer to this argument. 25. Learned counsel then relied on a document which is a letter dated June 27, 1982 (printed at page 176 of the paper book) in which the Master decided to limit the term of office of various posts to a maximum period of four yean from the date of appointment. It was argued that this indicated that the Master had ceased to have confidence in defendant no. 1 who was then the General Secretary of the Mission. The argument is devoid of any merit. The change in the bye-laws as regards the term of appointment of a secretary, joint secretary, etc., was general in its application and was not directed against the defendant No. 1. Likewise the fact that the Master limited the spending power of the General Secretary to Rs. 300 for any one item at a time including postage could not justify the sweeping inference that the same disclosed that the President was unhappy with the defendant No. 1. These various steps which the President took in financial matters or other organizational matters were general in character and were not aimed at defendant No. 1 personally. 26. The next circumstance stated to be reflecting on the genuineness of the authorisation is that in his letter dated April 6, 1982 addressed to the defendant No 1 the Master made certain remarks which, according to the plaintiffs, indicate that he was not happy with the defendant No. 1. The argument is entirely untenable. The portion relied on in support of this argument runs as follows : ''I have been seeing the sky with the pupil in the eye, that means try to see infinite in the finite, I also have and you too the power which gives flame to the righteousness, something more is needed on your part and you are aware of it." 27. In my opinion, learned counsel for the plaintiffs completely missed the true import of this letter. Reading the letter in its entirety it is apparent that the observations were made on purely abstract plane pointing out that both the Master as well as the defendant No. 1 have still to reach the ultimate in the field of spirituality. 28. In my opinion, learned counsel for the plaintiffs completely missed the true import of this letter. Reading the letter in its entirety it is apparent that the observations were made on purely abstract plane pointing out that both the Master as well as the defendant No. 1 have still to reach the ultimate in the field of spirituality. 28. The letter dated May 20, 1982 strongly relied on by the plaintiffs as well as the court below is equally unhelpful to the plaintiff. 29. This letter was written by the Master to one of his followers stating, inter alia, that the Mission needs a strong man for being declared as his representative. He has already been nominated as his representative and that the representative had been working for the last ten years. It was submitted that the contents to this letter point to the conclusion that the nomination was made somewhere in 1972 which belies the assertion that the defendant was nominated in 1974. 30. The argument is without any merit. The statement in the letter that the Master had nominated a representative who was working for the last ten years has not to be read literally or with mathematical exactitude. What the Master says in this letter is that he has already chosen his representative who has been working for the last ten years. There is evidence pointed out above showing that though named as a spiritual representative in 1974 the defendant No. 1 was working from before and that completely fits in with the statement made in the letter. 31. The above discussion exhausts all the circumstances which were pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents. In my opinion none of the circumstances by itself or considered cumulatively, prima facie, reflects upon the genuineness of the authorisation. 32. Further it is significant that the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents throughout the arguments made no attempt to submit that the signature appearing below the authorisation dated March 23, 1974 were not that of the Master. His entire effort was directed to wards establishing that some blank pipers signed by the Master were used by the defendant No. 1 for manufacturing the authorisation. His entire effort was directed to wards establishing that some blank pipers signed by the Master were used by the defendant No. 1 for manufacturing the authorisation. It is hardly necessary to emphasise that where the signature of the person by whom a document purports to have been executed is not denied, a heavy burden lies on the person who disputes the genuineness of that document. Such a burden can be discharged only by cogent and convincing evidence and not on mere broad hints of possibility that the document may be a suspect. The court below completely overlooked this aspect and it has even while considering whether prima facie the authorisation is genuine or not chosen to rely upon various trifling and inconsequential circumstances. For instance, the court below has observed that the meeting at which the defendant No. 1 was recognised as the lawful representative of the Master was held at Hydrabad and not at the headquarters of the Mission at Shahjahanpur. 33. Another circumstance pointed out was that the Master did not make any public declaration of the authorisation for nearly nine years completely ignoring the fact that the Master was not obliged to make any such declaration and that it was an open secret that the defendant No. 1 was being treated by the Master as his virtual successor performing vital functions and duties not assigned to any other disciple before. Another circumstance pointed out was that there was some space between the formal authorisation and the signature of the Master. 34. These are all far-fetched conclusions in so far as a preliminary enquiry as regards whether prima facie the document is genuine or not is concerned. On the trivial circumstance the court below was entirely unjustified in granting injunction overlooking the fact that the authorisation had also been recognised at the meeting of the working committee held on December 27, 1983 attended by very eminent persons. 35. Some attempt was also made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent to demonstrate that the meeting of December 27, 1983 suffered from some irregularities. He was, however entirely unable to point out any such irregularity which might reflect on the validity of the meeting. Learned counsel conceded that the prescribed quorum for the meeting was five, whereas nine members of the working committee had attended the meeting. He was, however entirely unable to point out any such irregularity which might reflect on the validity of the meeting. Learned counsel conceded that the prescribed quorum for the meeting was five, whereas nine members of the working committee had attended the meeting. Learned counsel submitted that the notice of the meeting had not been widely published. In the absence, however, of any reliable material it cannot be assumed that the meeting was not validly held or convened. The secretary as well as defendant No. 1 had both filed affidavits affirming that the meeting had been validly convened and held. That being so, it must be assumed that prima facie the nomination made by the Master had been endorsed by the working committee also. 36. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submitted that the Master had, under the constitution, no power to appoint anyone as his spiritual representative or successor. Relying on Rule 3 (b) of the Rules and Constitution of the Mission, it was urged that the spiritual representative could be only that individual who had attained the highest degree of spirituality and it was not open to the Master to nominate the defendant No 1 who had, according to the plaintiffs, not attained that degree of spiritual success by that date. The court below has also relied on this provision in support of its conclusion that the Master had no power to nominate the defendant No. 1. 37. The argument is wholly untenable. In the first place, in the plaint there is no challenge at all to the power of the Master himself to name his spiritual successor. In the second place, the Master as the founder of the Mission ho had this Mission and its rules and bye-laws registered was the best person to speak on whether the person whom he was naming as his spiritual representative possessed the requisite spiritual merit so as to succeed him as his successor. No one could, I do venture to think, be a better judge of what the expression "his spiritual representative in the direct line of succession" was precisely intended to convey. After all these rules were but the voice of the Master himself, and if he considered the defendant No. 1 to be fit and eligible, that ought to be sufficient at least for the injunction. 38. After all these rules were but the voice of the Master himself, and if he considered the defendant No. 1 to be fit and eligible, that ought to be sufficient at least for the injunction. 38. The court below was hence entirely unjustified in entering into the V question whether the Master was legally competent to name his spiritual successor under Rule 3 (b). Further the plaintiffs proclaim that they have brought this suit with a view to preserving the values and ideals propounded by the Master, is, therefore, strange that the plaintiffs should be heard to question the actions of the very Master by whom they pretend to swear and on that basis ask for ad interim injunction. In my opinion, for purposes of injunction it was sufficient that the Master had named the defendant No. 1 to be his spiritual regret tentative and in that capacity the President of the Mission. 39. For the plaintiff-respondents, it was urged that there can be no nomination or appointment of a President except by a registered deed of a will. The submission was that inasmuch as the functions of the President include management of the properties of the Mission including immovable properties the nomination or appointment of a President must be evidenced by a registered document or under a will. The argument is devoid of any merit. No transfer of property is implied in the appointment of the President of the Mission. No registered document was, therefore, required for the appointment of the defendant No. 1 as the President. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, namely, Tajo Ram Nath and another v. Baneswar Nath, AIR 1962 Assam 106. and Ram Rattan v. Rajrang Lal and others, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1393. have no bearing on the issue involved quite apart from the fact that they are distinguishable on facts. 40. My conclusion, therefore, is that, prima facie, the defendant No. 1 was duly appointed as the spiritual representative of the founder and was validly authorised by him to perform the duties and functions of the President of the k Mission. My further conclusion is that, prima facie, defendant No. 1 has also f been recognised as the President of the Mission by the working committee at its meeting held on December 27, 1983 and, prima facie the said meeting appears to have been validly convened and conducted. My further conclusion is that, prima facie, defendant No. 1 has also f been recognised as the President of the Mission by the working committee at its meeting held on December 27, 1983 and, prima facie the said meeting appears to have been validly convened and conducted. In the face of the authorisation/nomination made in favour of the defendant No. 1 both by the founder as well as by the working committee it is apparent that the plaintiffs have no prima facie case to merit the grant of ad interim injunction. 41. In this connection may add that the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents invited my attention to the proceedings of certain meetings of the working committee stated to have been held subsequent to the grant of ad interim injunction whereby the defendant No. t as the President as well as the defendant Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, the Joint Secretary and Secretary of the Mission were all restrained from interfering with the affairs of the Mission. Apart from the fact that learned counsel was unable to establish any irregularity which could prima facie affect the validity of the meeting held on December 27, 1983, it is apparent that such proceedings held after the grant of injunction against the defendants cannot be of much assistance in the present proceedings. More over, those proceedings were not made part of the record of the case giving rise to this appeal. 42. Coming to the question of balance of convenance also do not agree with the court below that the plaintiffs made out any case for the grant of ad interim injunction. By an order dated January 4, 1984 the trial court granted an injunction the relevant portion of which reads as under : "Till further order defendants are restrained to interfere in the working of the Ram Chandra Mission as prayed. Defendant No. 1 is further restrained to act and allege himself as the President of the Mission". 43. This ex parte injunction has been confirmed by the impugned order. It will be seen that by the impugned injunction not only has the defendant No. 1 been restrained from performing his duties as the President of the Mission but also defendant Nos. 2 and 3 who are admittedly the Joint Secretary and Secretary, respectively, from interfering with the affairs and management of the Mission. It will be seen that by the impugned injunction not only has the defendant No. 1 been restrained from performing his duties as the President of the Mission but also defendant Nos. 2 and 3 who are admittedly the Joint Secretary and Secretary, respectively, from interfering with the affairs and management of the Mission. Thus, all the principal office bearers of the Mission have been restrained. 1 It is not difficult to see that it will lead to an anomalous situation where all the key office bearers stand restrained from performing their duties. That the Mission and its affairs would be seriously prejudiced by such injunction is not difficult to visualize. The plaintiffs do not allege that anyone else was named as the spiritual successor or has , been appointed by the working committee. Under the circumstances the Mission the interest of which ought to be the principal consideration in a litigation of this description, is bound to suffer much more than the prejudice alleged by the plaintiffs. 44. The matter can be looked at from another point of view. If the conclusion that prima facie the defendant No. 1 was validly named as the spiritual successor of the founder and he was also the choice of the working committee, the defendants as well as the Mission will suffer irreparable loss if an injunction is granted contrary to the declaration made by the founder himself. In ray opinion, therefore, in balancing the convenience, the defendants would suffer much grifter harm than the plaintiffs. 45. In the view that I am taking on the issues of existence of prima facie case and balance of convenience, it is not necessary to consider the legal submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants to the effect that the grant f ad interim injunction is completely prohibited in view of the local amendments made under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure in that the injunction sought would have the effect of interfering with the internal management of a registered society. For the same reason, it is not necessary to go into the controversy whether the suit is not barred by Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act and whether the suit is maintainable having regard to the nature of the rights claimed by the plaintiffs. 46. For the same reason, it is not necessary to go into the controversy whether the suit is not barred by Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act and whether the suit is maintainable having regard to the nature of the rights claimed by the plaintiffs. 46. Before conclusion, I may add that the observations which have made in this judgment are tentative and have been made entirely in the context of the matter of injunction. It is apparent that my comments on the various issues of fact or evidence led by parties so far are wholly tentative with a view to finding out whether the plaintiffs (with a view to finding out whether the plaintiffs) have any prima facie case and whether the balance of convenience lies their favour. The elaborate reasons which have been constrained to give in this judgment were necessitated by the fact that learned counsel for both sides took me through the entire evidence led by them before the court below with a view to supporting their contentions in appeal thereby inviting my comments thereon. The court below shall, however, be free to arrive at its own conclusions, while disposing of the main suit, wholly uninfluenced by the observations made by me in this appeal. 47. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the court below are set aside. The injunction application filed by the plaintiff-respondents in the court below is dismissed. The appellants shall be entitled to their costs from the plaintiff-respondents. J