JUDGMENT S.H.A. Raza, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15th September, 1990 passed by the Additional District Judge, Barabanki in Miscellaneous Appeal no. 26 of 1986 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13th May, 1986 passed by the Civil Judge, Barabanki/Tribunal constituted under U.P. Muslim Waqf Act in Miscellaneous Case no. 13 of 1986; by means of which the application filed by the opposite parties under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed and it was directed that during the pendency of the case, the petitioner will not interfere into the possession of the property in dispute. 2. The factual matrix as set out in the writ petition is that opposite parties filed a claim petition under section 8 read with section 71 of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act before the Tribunal constituted under section 70 of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act. The opposite parties who were plaintiffs of the said claim petition preferred an application for injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The Tribunal allowed the application for injunction by its order dated 13th May, 1986. 3. Being aggrieved against the order dated 13th May, 1986 passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred a Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that no appeal against the award made by the Tribunal constituted under the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act is provided, hence no appeal against an order allowing or rejecting an application could be maintainable. Hon'ble Mr. justice M.C. Desai, the Chief Justice (as he then was) speaking on behalf of the Division Bench in the case of Sunni Central of Waqfs. U.P., Lucknow & Anr. v. Sirajul Haq Khan Vakil and others AIR 1963 Allahabad 537 indicated as under: It would appear from the provisions of Sections 75 and 76 that the Legislature clearly intended that the proceedings before the Tribunal shall be conclusive and the High Court has been vested only with revisional powers for examining the correctness, legality or propriety of any award made by the Tribunal. An order passed by the Tribunal during the pendency of the reference before it would not be an award and would not attract the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. An order passed by the Tribunal during the pendency of the reference before it would not be an award and would not attract the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. It is thus clear that no revision would lie in this court from an order appointing receivers by the Tribunal during the course of the pendency of the reference before it. Even though there is no express bar against appeal from an interim order passed by the Tribunal, it would appear that when the award itself is made final and conclusive and no appeal is provided against such an award and there is an express bar against instituting any such suit or proceeding in a Civil Court with respect to any dispute or question which may be referred to a Tribunal for adjudication it clearly follows that the legislature intended that there should be no appeal from an interim order passed by the Tribunal during the course of the pendency of the reference before it. 4. There is no dispute that the reference under section 71 of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act filed before the Tribunal is still pending, hence no appeal from an interim order passed by the Tribunal would be maintainable. 5. I have gone through the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge. I find no infirmity in the order. 6. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. No order is made as to costs. (Petition dismissed.)