1. A Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioners-defendants from interfering in the management, administration and other matters of Ghausia Jamia Masjid Bathendi Morh, Jammu and the landed property measuring 5 kanals 5 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 331 min situated at Village Channi Rama, Jammu was filed by Alflah Gousia Muslim Trust, inter alia, pleading that the Trust had been constituted by ten persons namely Abdul Aziz Bhatt, Mushtaq Hussain Baji, Mohd. Bashir, Abdul Rashid Mir, Sadiq Hussain, Abdul Majid, Mohd. Aziz, Haji Shoket Ali, Haji Munshi and Mohd. Ashraf for, amongst others, better administration of Ghausia Jamia Masjid Bathendi Morh. 2. It was indicated in the plaint that one of the petitioners namely Ghulam Rasool had been mismanaging and misusing the funds/donations/income of the said Masjid Sharief in connivance with other petitioners-defendants for last so many years. 3. The petitioners contested the respondents Suit denying the allegations of mismanagement of the affairs of Ghausia Jamia Masjid Bathendi Morh which according to Ghulam Rasool was being administered and managed by him as its President. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs had constituted a self styled Trust to achieve their nefarious design of usurping the property of the Masjid Sharief which was stated by the defendants to have been constructed on the land donated by Ghulam Rasools father. According to the defendants, Ghulam Rasool was managing the affairs of the Masjid Sharief smoothly with the help of other office bearers. It was further indicated by the defendants in their Written Statement that the plaintiffs had filed the Suit against the defendants when the latter had not obliged them to part with the possession of the land in possession of the Masjid where they wanted to raise construction of some Shops. 4. An ex-parte ad-interim injunction was issued by the trial Court of learned City Judge, Jammu on February 19, 2009 whereby the petitioners-defendants were temporarily restrained from causing any sort of interference in the management, administration and other matters of Ghausia Jamia Masjid Bathendi Morh and from interfering with the landed property measuring 5 kanals 5 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 331 min situated at Village Channi Rama, Jammu under the possession and use of Ghausia Jamia Masjid Bathendi Morh, Jammu. The defendants were further restrained from collecting any donation in the name of Ghausia Jamia Masjid Bathendi Morh. The defendants were further restrained from collecting any donation in the name of Ghausia Jamia Masjid Bathendi Morh. This ex-parte order, on contest by the petitioners was made absolute vide trial Courts order of May 26, 2009. 5. Petitioners Appeal against the Order before learned Principal District Judge, Jammu having failed, they have invoked the Revisional Jurisdiction of the Court seeking setting aside of the orders of the trial Court and the Ist Appellate Court. 6. I have heard and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, gone through their pleadings, copies whereof have been placed on records and the orders passed by the Courts below. 7. The trial Court had come to the conclusion that as the operation of the two Trust Deeds, one relied upon by the plaintiffs and the other by the petitioners-defendants, was in different fields and the subject matter of the Suit was covered by the Trust Deed relied upon by the plaintiffs, so there was a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs justifying issuance of the injunction. 8. Learned District Judge was, however, of the view that as the land over which the Masjid Sharief stood constructed was State land and did not belong to any private person, so in order to benefit maximum people of the locality, it would be just and proper if the property in dispute was managed and administered by the respondents because the petitioners had been mismanaging and misusing the funds/donations and income of the Masjid. 9. Both the Courts below have dealt with the case perfunctorily, avoiding prima facie determination of the real issues between the parties, which were necessarily required to be examined to find as to whether or not the respondents-plaintiffs had succeeded in making out a prima facie case justifying issuance of the impugned injunctive directions. 10. The dispute projected by the plaintiffs-respondents in their Suit did not refer to the affairs of Alflah Gousia Muslim Trust alone, but pertained to the administration, management and affairs of Ghausia Jamia Masjid Bathendi and the land in possession of the Masjid Sharief. The plaintiffs plaint indicates the petitioners-defendants to have been managing the affairs of the Masjid Sharief before the constitution of Alflah Gousia Muslim Trust on February 13, 2009. 11. The plaintiffs plaint indicates the petitioners-defendants to have been managing the affairs of the Masjid Sharief before the constitution of Alflah Gousia Muslim Trust on February 13, 2009. 11. The Trust Deed relied upon by the petitioners-defendants specifically records petitioner-Ghulam Rasool to have been managing the affairs of the Trust known as Ghausia Memorial Trust from the premises of Ghausia Jamia Masjid Bathendi Morh, Jammu. 12. Although the Trust Deed relied upon by the plaintiffs does not hint at the mismanagement of the Masjid by Ghulam Rasool, yet it impliedly indicates his ouster therefrom. 13. The Petitioners-defendants had questioned the power and authority of the settlers to constitute the Alflah Gousia Muslim Trust saying that he could not be ousted from the management of the Masjid without following proper procedure therefor. 14. The questions that, therefore, were required to be determined though prima facie, to find the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case and other legal requirements justifying issuance of injunctive directions were inter alia as follows:- a) Whether the settlers of Alflah Gousia Muslim Trust had any right to constitute the Trust for the management and administration of the affairs of Ghausia Jamia Masjid Bathendi Morh, Jammu and were entitled to manage the affairs of the Masjid Sharief? b) Whether petitioner-Ghulam Rasool had infact been ousted from the management and affairs of the Masjid, if so, when and how? c) Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the Masjid and its properties and had any right to seek injunctive directions against the defendants in respect of the management of the affairs of Ghausia Jamia Masjid Bathendi? d) Whether there was any material on records in proof of the plaintiffs-respondents averments that the petitionersdefendants had been mismanaging the affairs and misusing the funds of Ghausia Jamia Masjid Bathendi Morh? 15. As the questions aforementioned, amongst others, arising out of the pleadings of the parties including the right claimed by the petitioners-defendants to manage the affairs of Ghausia Jamia Masjid Bathendi have not been determined by the Courts below to find the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case and other legal requirements justifying issuance of injunctive directions so their orders cannot be justified, in that, they have acted illegally in issuing the injunction against the petitioners without first addressing the questions which they were required under law so to do. 16. 16. Perusal of the trial Courts ex-parte ad-interim order, which was later made absolute, demonstrates injudicious exercise of jurisdiction by the learned City Judge in issuing such injunctive directions at the interim stage which, in effect and in essence, was the final relief prayed for by the respondents in their Suit. 17. Power of the Court to dispense with the Notice before considering issuance of ex-parte ad-interim injunction, contemplated by Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, too has been exercised in a mechanical fashion and routine manner, without spelling out the colossal loss that would have been caused to the plaintiffs in the event of issuance of a short Notice before considering the respondents application seeking issuance of ad-interim injunction against the defendants. 18. Dispensing with the Notice to the opposite party before issuance considering issuance of injunction is not an idle formality and the Courts are required to exercise this power only on the existence of good and sufficient spelt out reasons in support of its opinion that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay which may occasion in the issuance of Notice to the opposite party. 19. The trial Court has not followed the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC in letter and spirit while dispensing with the issuance of prior Notice before issuance of injunctive directions and thus erred in issuing injunction of such a dimension which has the effect of ousting the petitioners from the affairs of the Masjid, which course may be contemplated only in case of a very strong and exceptional prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs warranting issuance of the directions which, if not issued would have rendered the Suit infructuous or otherwise caused such irreparable damage or injury to the plaintiffs which may not be compensated by costs. 20. 20. Coming to the order passed by the first Appellate Court, it is found that the grievance projected by the petitioners in their Appeal against the order of the trial Court and stated to have been demonstrated at the time of its hearing has not at all been addressed to by the learned District Judge who has decided the Appeal in a slip shod manner without dwelling on the issues which were required to be addressed before ruling on the correctness or otherwise of the trial Courts order and erroneously recording finding without there being any material in support thereof that the petitioners had been mismanaging the affairs of and misusing the income/funds of the Masjid Sharief. 21. Respondents learned counsels plea that this Court should not interfere with the orders of the Courts below in view of the law laid-down by the Honble Supreme Court of India in Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad and another v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager (Purchase and Stores) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad, reported as AIR 1973 SC, 76, is untenable, in that, both the Courts below having been found to have exercised their jurisdiction illegally, the judgment referred to by the learned counsel would have no application to the facts of the case. 22. For all what has been said above, the orders impugned in the Revision Petition need to be set aside requiring the trial Court to examine the respondents case for deciding their application seeking injunction afresh. 23. This Revision Petition, therefore, succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed, setting aside order dated 26.05.2009 of learned City Judge, Jammu and order dated 26.09.2009 of learned Principal District Judge, Jammu. 24. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for consideration afresh of respondents application for issuance of ad-interim injunction in accordance with law. 25. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on April 17, 2010. 26. In view of the orders passed in C.Rev.147/2009, Contempt (C) No. D-1/2010 does not require further consideration. It is disposed of, accordingly.