JUDGMENT This is a Revisional Application filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code directed against the order dated 28.11.94 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Sealdah in Misc. Appeal No. 103/1993 arising out of Title Suit No. 423/93. 2. The matter relates to Wakf Property at 5A & 5B, Christopher Road. The Wakf Estate was created by one Abdur Rahim and Shah Sufi Syed Ohaidullah Shah Bagdadi was appointed as the first Mutwali and direction was given by the Waklf that the sons and grandsons etc. of tie first Mutwalli whoever will be ............and otherwise eligible would become Mutwalli. The present petitioner is the widow of the 3rd Mutwalli namely Badruddin who was the grandson of the first Mutwalli. On the death of Badruddin his widow was appointed as Mutwalli by the Wakf Commissioner. The claim of the Plaintiff O.P., who is the son of the 2nd grandson of tile first Mutwalli, was rejected. Urs festival is held every year at 5A & 5B, Christopher Road at the tomb of the first Mutwalli in 1993 i.e. after the demise of Badruddin the Plaintiff-O.P filed a Title Suit with the prayer for declaration that he being the only male descendant was entitled to hold 'Urs festival' and other religious functions at 5A & 5B, Christopher Road relating to the death anniversary of the first Mutwalli and also for negative declaration that the present petitioner being a female was not entitled to perform, lead and call the devotees to the Urs festival and to perform any other religious functions. He prayed for ad-interim injunction which was rejected by the learned Munsif. 3. On being aggrieved he preferred a Misc. Appeal before the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Sealdah and the S.C.C. Judge set aside the order of learned Munsif and passed an ad-Interim order on 28.11.94. That order has been challenged in the present revisional application before his 'Hon'ble Court In the last year as I find from the record, Mr. Justice Tarua Chatterjee appointed two, Special Officers for conducting the Urs festival. But the revisional application is still pending. 4. The Urs festival of this year is going to be held from 9th July for two days. So, the parties have prayed for early disposal of the matter. Justice Tarua Chatterjee appointed two, Special Officers for conducting the Urs festival. But the revisional application is still pending. 4. The Urs festival of this year is going to be held from 9th July for two days. So, the parties have prayed for early disposal of the matter. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that In this year two Special Officers may also be appointed for conducting the Urs festival and the revisional application may be disposed of later on with direction to the Trial Court for disposal of the injunction matter and the suit expeditiously. The learned Advocate appearing for the Plaintiff-O.P. submits that the revisional application should be heard and disposed of immediately. Meanwhile, the 2ad Mutwalli executed a Will and appointed his sister's husband namely Syed Akbar Ali as the executor of that Will. That executor filed an application before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee for his addition as a party to the revisional matter and that prayer was allowed. The-learned Advocate appearing for the executor of the Will has submitted that the properties at SA & 5B, Christopher Road are secular properties and in short, as I could understand from his submission, he has opposed the claim of the Plaintiff Opposite Party. 5. According to the learned Advocate for the Plaintiff-Opposite Party the petitioner being a female is not entitled to perform the religious functions connected with the Urs festival and as such be being the only surviving male descendant of the first Mutwaili according to the desire of the Waklf, he should be declared as 'Sajjada Nasin'. It also appears from the submission of the learned Advocate for the executor of the Will that a partition suit is pending amongst the surviving heirs of the 2nd Mutwalli-Sultan Syed Giyasuddin Ahmed. Whatever be the case, all these questions relate to the merit of the suit and in my opinion, in the revisional matter those Issues should mot be decided for avoiding the pre-judging the Issues and all those issues should be kept open for decision by the appropriate Court. 6. The revisional application is confined to the Interim injunction order passed by the learned Appellate Court in the Miscellaneous Appeal. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the plaintiff-opposite party that the petitioner being a female cannot be appointed as Mutwalli under the Islamic Law. 6. The revisional application is confined to the Interim injunction order passed by the learned Appellate Court in the Miscellaneous Appeal. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the plaintiff-opposite party that the petitioner being a female cannot be appointed as Mutwalli under the Islamic Law. At this stage I am reluctant to enter into such question whether the appointment of the petitioner as Mutwalli is valid under the Islamic Law or not. But the fact remains that she was appointed as Mutwalli by the Wakf Commissioner. And that she is also in possession of the properties at 5A & 5B, Christopher Road. Some other male 'descendants, as I find from the genealogical table filed by the learned Advocate for the plaintiff-opposite party also reside at Christopher Road But the plaintiff opposite party resides at 8A, Bright Road which is at a distance from the place where the 'Mazar' of the Pir Sahib is situated and where the Urs festival takes place every year. There is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff opposite party ever performed the duty of 'Sajjad Nasia'. That apart the Urs festival is nothing but remembering the dead soul of Pir Sahib and to pay homage and respect to Him on his Death Anniversary. It is admitted by the plaintiff- opposite party in his affidavit that it is a family affair. That apart under the Islamic Law a female Mutwalli can also appoint deputies to perform the religious functions connected with the Wakf Estate. 7. On the other hand the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court is not supported by reasoning. The learned Judge has not mentioned any ground on which he was pleased to set aside the order of the Trial Court, In the impugned order the learned Judge, Small Causes Court has mentioned the submission made by the learned Advocate for the appellant also has held that the petitioner respondent being a female is not entitled to perform religious functions under the Islamic Law. The learned Judge has mentioned the argument placed by the learned Advocate for the appellant extensively in a one sided way without making the least reference to the arguments advanced by the Advocate for the petitioner respondent. The learned Judge has mentioned the argument placed by the learned Advocate for the appellant extensively in a one sided way without making the least reference to the arguments advanced by the Advocate for the petitioner respondent. The learned Judge found the balance of convenience and Inconvenience in favour of the plaintiff-appellant i.e. the opposite party but I do not find any reason in the impugned order as to the basis of the findings regarding the balance of convenience and Inconvenience. The learned Judge has pre-Judged the Issues pending before the Trial Court and bas come to, his conclusion in his own way without citing any authority for deciding, the Misc. Appeal in favour of the plaintiff appellant I. e. opposite party in the present revisional application. In short, after taking into consideration the respective submissions of the learned Advocates representing both parties in this revisional matter and considering the decisions placed by them and also considering the present facts and circumstances of this case I do not find adequate ground or reason to support the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, the Impugned order dated 28.11.94 passed by learned Judge, Small Causes Court in the Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby set aside. The learned Trial Court Is directed to dispose of the temporary injunction matter within a month from the date of communication of this order and to dispose of the Title Suit pending in his Court within six months thereafter. The revisional application is thus disposed of. The learned Advocates are at liberty to communicate the gist of this order. Laler/8.7.96- Let a plain copy of the gist ofth1s order be given to the learned Advocates appearing for the both Ides duly countersigned by an Assistant Registrar of this Court.