Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.— Heard Shri M.A.Qadeer, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri M.H.Qadeer, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri T.A.Khan, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. This revision under Section 83 (9) of Wakf Act 1995 is directed against order dated 29.1.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Wakf Tribunal, Moradabad granting temporary injunction in reference (O.S.) No.301 of 2012. Copy of the reference is Annexure-11 to the affidavit filed in support of stay application in this revision. The reference has been filed by opposite party no.1 in this revision against applicants and opposite parties 2 to 5 in this revision. The reference is described to be under Section 83 of Wakf Act. Property in dispute is agricultural land. It has been claimed by applicant Mutwalli Hameed Akhtar in the reference that his great grand father Mohd. Ismail was owner of the agricultural land in dispute who created wakf of the same through registered wakf deed dated 21.12.1921 and appointed himself as Mutwalli, the wakf was registered in the office of U.P. Sunni Central Wakf Board as wakf no.41 E.X. 2 Kasba Bhojpur District Moradabad. It was further stated that after wakf property in dispute was entered in the revenue record as wakf in khata khewat no.67. It was further stated that after the death of Mohd. Ismail his son Raziudeen was appointed as Mutwalli who did not properly take care of the wakf properties and undue advantage of the said negligence was taken by opposite party nos. 1 to 21 by illegally occupying the land and getting their names entered in the revenue records, that on 28.11.2011 Hamid Akhtar was appointed as mutawalli and on inquiry he found that opposite party nos. 1 to 11 had got their names entered in the revenue records and opposite party no.9 had executed sale deeds in favour of opposite parties 12 and 15 and thereafter they had executed further sale deeds in favour of other opposite parties and that the applicant had started proceeding under Section 54 of the Wakf Act in the office of the wakf board which was pending. In para-8 it was stated that thereafter the applicant on 20.12.2011 filed an application before the wakf board for entry of the entire agricultural land mentioned in the wakf deed as wakf property in the registers of the Wakf Board however, no effective action had been taken thereupon and only a letter had been issued on 27.3.2012 but District Magistrate/Additional Assistant Survey Wakf Commissioner calling for the report and for preventing further mutation. It was also stated that opposite parties 12 to 21 had started making constructions upon part of the property. Relief claimed in the reference is that wakf board be directed to enter the agricultural properties mentioned at the bottom of the reference application as wakf property in its register under Section 37 of the Wakf Act in accordance with the Wakf deed dated 21.12.1921. It was further prayed that defendants 1 to 21 be directed not to alienate the property in dispute. Alongwith reference temporary injunction application was also filed. The court below through impugned order allowed the temporary injunction application and directed the parties not to transfer the property in dispute and to maintain status quo. Applicants in the revision/opposite parties in the reference contended that in the original Wakf Deed dated 2.12.1921 the property mentioned was only 2 biswancies land however through rectification deed dated 22.8.1922 more property was included; That in the khewat name of Raziudeen son of wakif was entered in his personal capacity. Annexure-5 to the affidavit is extract of register maintained by the wakf board under Section 37of Wakf Act 1995. Applicants in the revision contended that boundaries of the land given in the said register include only an area of 2 biswancies. It was also pleaded that Banne Miyan father of applicant Mutawalli had filed a suit being suit no.29 of 1980 Banne Miyan vs. Raziudeen and others claiming ownership. In the said suit Banne Miyan did not make any mention of the Wakf Deed. The suit was dismissed by Additional Civil Judge, Moradabad on 7.2.1982. Appeal filed against the same by the father of the applicant mutawalli opposite party no.1 in the revision being civil appeal no.219 of 1988 was partly allowed on 14.12.1983 and suit of the plaintiff was decreed only for Rs.3.75 as cost of the trees holding that plaintiff had only1/825 share. The defendants of the suit were held to have the remaining share. The defendants of the suit were held to have the remaining share. Lot of arguments have been raised in this revision regarding maintainability of the reference/suit before the court below. At this stage I am not inclined to decide this question. Let that be decided by the court below. However, since Zamindari Abolition name of the Wakf has not been entered in the revenue record. Properties in dispute are also not entered in the register of the wakf board as wakf property. Accordingly there was no occasion to grant temporary injunction. Moreover any transfer made during pendency of the suit/reference will not adversely affect the right of the applicant in the reference/opposite party no.1 in this revision as in case reference/suit is decided in favour of applicant/plaintiff, then on the basis of Section 52 T.P. Act or the principles thereof transferee pendenti lite would be bound by the judgment. Accordingly, revision is allowed. Impugned order is set aside with the observation that in case reference/suit is decreed/allowed, transferees pendentelite would be bound by the decree/order by virtue of Section 52 T.P. Act or the principles thereof. _____________