JUDGMENT 1. QUESTIONING the legality and propriety of resolution dated June 1, 2011 adopted by the Board of Wakfs, West Bengal (hereafter the Board), since confirmed in its meeting held on July 13, 2011, the petitioner filed an application before the Wakf Tribunal (hereafter the Tribunal) under Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (hereafter the Act), on July 26, 2011. The application was registered as O.A. No. 8 of 2011. 2. IN connection with such application, the petitioner filed an application praying for stay of operation of the impugned resolution and to restrain the respondents 2 to 6 in the said application from acting as Mutawalli of Gafurannesa Bibi Wakf Estate (hereafter the said estate). The Tribunal in its order dated July 26, 2011 observed that it has no power to pass an interim order of stay in connection with an application under Section 83(2) of the Act and, therefore, refused the prayer for stay made by the petitioner. This order is challenged by the petitioner in this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution. 3. WHILE hearing the revisional application at the motion stage on July 29, 2011, I passed an interim order staying operation of the resolution of the Board under challenge before the Tribunal till 2nd September, 2011, or until further orders, whichever is earlier, on the ground that the Tribunal had misconstrued the scope of Section 83(5) of the Act, and directed service of copies of the revisional application on the opposite parties. 4. THE opposite parties 2 to 6, after service was effected on them, entered appearance and filed an application for vacating the interim order dated July 29, 2011, being CAN No. 7592 of 2011. The revisional application together with the application for vacating interim order has been heard in presence of the appearing parties. 5. MR. Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate for the petitioner at the very outset referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Board of Wakf, West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begam and anr., reported in 2010 (12) SCALE 323, wherein it has been ruled that the Tribunal in terms of Section 83(5) of the Act has all the powers of the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, and hence also has powers under Order 39 Rules 1, 2 and 2A thereof to grant temporary injunctions and enforce such injunctions. The Tribunal, according to him, misdirected itself in observing that it has no power to grant interim stay and on this ground alone, the revisional application is entitled to succeed. 6. ANSWERING the contention of Mr. Bhattacharya, Mr. Dutta, learned advocate for the opposite parties 2 to 6 invited my attention to the contents of the application for vacating interim order and the annexures thereto to contend that the field is covered by Section 69 of the Act and in terms of the second proviso to Section 69(3) thereof, the Tribunal was right in concluding that it had no power to stay operation of the resolution of the Board under challenge before it. Mr. Dutta also submitted that the opposite parties 2 to 6, by reason of the interim order dated 29th July, 2011 passed by me, had been dislodged by the petitioner although, in terms of the resolution of the Board under challenge before the Tribunal, they comprised the committee to function as Committee Mutawalli. 7. WHILE praying for dismissal of the revisional application, Mr. Dutta also prayed for restoration of the status quo as was prevailing on the date the Tribunal had been moved by the petitioner. 8. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties, perused the materials on record and considered the decision cited at the bar. Let me first deal with the contention raised by Mr. Dutta referring to the second proviso to Section 69(3) of the Act. It is needed true that in terms thereof, the Tribunal has no power to stay the operation of an order made under that section. It is, therefore, necessary to understand the scope and purport of Section 69 of the Act. It empowers the Board to frame a scheme for administration of a wakf in the manner prescribed. The manner in which power is to be exercised under Section 69 is to be found in Rules 20 and 21 of the West Bengal Wakf Rules, 2001 (hereafter the said Rules). On bare perusal of the resolution under challenge before the Tribunal, it is clear that the Board proceeded to exercise power under Section 63 of the Act and not under Section 69 thereof. On bare perusal of the resolution under challenge before the Tribunal, it is clear that the Board proceeded to exercise power under Section 63 of the Act and not under Section 69 thereof. Since no scheme had been framed by the Board under Section 69 and provisions contained in Rules 20 and 21 of the said Rules were not complied with, on facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the restriction on the Tribunal to pass an order of stay in terms of the second proviso to Section 69(3) of the Act would not be applicable here. The contention of Mr. Dutta is misconceived and accordingly stands overruled. 9. REGARD being had to the decision in Anis Fatma Begum (supra), the power of the Tribunal to pass an interim order on an application filed under Section 83(2) of the Act is no longer res integra. The decision is an authority for the proposition that the Tribunal has all the powers exercisable by a Civil Court under the Code while trying a suit, or executing a decree or an order. An interim order is passed in aid of a final decision in a suit or proceedings and if indeed a Civil Court has the power to pass an interim order, while exercising powers conferred by the Code, there is no reason as to why the Tribunal should consider itself denuded of such power despite being vested with the same powers exercisable under the Code. I may rule, in addition thereto, that it is only in circumstances covered by Section 69 of the Act that the second proviso to Section 69(3) thereof would restrict its power to grant an injunction, and not otherwise. 10. I agree with Mr. Bhattacharya that the resolution under challenge before the Tribunal was passed in exercise of power conferred by Section 63 of the Act and no scheme as is envisaged in Section 69 thereof was framed. It was, therefore, not a case where the second proviso to Section 69(3) would have application. The order impugned in this application is patently erroneous and, therefore, liable to be set aside. It is ordered accordingly. The problem does not end here. It is not in dispute that the resolution under challenge before the Tribunal was acted upon and the opposite parties 2 to 6 comprising the Committee Mutawalli had taken over charge of the said estate. It is ordered accordingly. The problem does not end here. It is not in dispute that the resolution under challenge before the Tribunal was acted upon and the opposite parties 2 to 6 comprising the Committee Mutawalli had taken over charge of the said estate. Direction is called for in respect of the arrangement that ought to continue till disposal of the application for stay by the Tribunal. I shall now proceed to consider that aspect. 11. I would have allowed the Committee Mutawalli comprising the opposite parties 2 to 6 to function till the Tribunal passes further orders but having regard to an order passed by this Court, I regret my inability to permit the same. Before the resolution under challenge before the Tribunal was adopted by the Board, the petitioner had the occasion to approach this Court in its writ jurisdiction. By an order dated 25th May, 2011, a learned Judge of this Court directed maintenance of status quo as on that date with regard to appointment of a Committee of Mutawalli, consisting of the representatives of the petitioner and the opposite parties 2 to 6 to manage the affairs of the said estate till 15th June, 2011. The petitioners learned advocate communicated the said order to the Board on 26th May, 2011. Despite the Board having been informed of the Courts order, it proceeded to adopt the resolution on 1st June, 2011. It, prima facie, appears to be in the teeth of this Courts order dated 25th May, 2011. It is true that the order dated 25th May, 2011 was an ad-interim order which lapsed after 15th June, 2011, but that is not considered sufficient ground to view the resolution dated 1st June, 2011 to be legal, proper and valid. Any act in violation of a Courts order is a nullity. In view thereof, I direct that since the petitioner is in charge of the said estate as Mutawalli, he shall continue to do so until disposal of the application for stay filed in connection with O.A. No. 8 of 2011. The opposite parties 2 to 6 shall be entitled to file their written objection to the said application within a fortnight from date; reply thereto, if any, may be filed by the petitioner by three days thereafter. The opposite parties 2 to 6 shall be entitled to file their written objection to the said application within a fortnight from date; reply thereto, if any, may be filed by the petitioner by three days thereafter. The Tribunal shall proceed to decide the stay application finally, immediately after the pleadings are complete, as early as possible but not later than 31st October, 2011. 12. THE revisional application stands allowed without any order as to costs. In view of the aforesaid order, CAN No. 7592 of 2011 stands disposed of. It is made clear that while deciding the application for stay finally, the Tribunal shall not be influenced by any observations/findings contained hereinabove. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment and order may be furnished, if applied for, to the applicant as expeditiously as possible.