JUDGMENT : Amit Rawal, J. 1. The present revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Tribunal whereby the claim of the petitioner for injunction restraining the mahal members i.e., the respondents from interfering in constructing a retaining wall on a Wakf property having an extent of 2 acres, described in the schedule as ‘Maidani Palliyum Chuttumulla smasanavum, comprised in Re-survey No.132 of Panthalayani Village in Koyilandi Municipality. Revision Petitioner is stated to be a Mutawalli of the plaint schedule Wakf property and in management and administration of the same. A multi storied building in the vacant portion of the property after obtaining the approved plan and permit from the Municipality has been constructed which is a commercial complex wherein the tenants are occupying the various shop rooms under different lease deeds. On 13.05.2022, the revision petitioner engaged certain labourers for cleaning work and to dig a pit in order to construct a stone wall for protecting the building situated in the plaint schedule property, which was obstructed, and it led to the filing of the suit. 2. The aforementioned suit was contested by the respondents challenging the locus standi of the plaintiff as well as the fact that under the garb of raising of retaining wall. The plaintiff intended to raise a commercial building which is not permissible without obtaining the permission from various authorities, Panchayat, Municipality and Wakf Board. Learned Tribunal framed the following issues: 1) Whether the suit is maintainable? 2) Whether the plaintiff is having locus standi to file the suit? 3) Whether the alleged cause of action is true ? 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for an injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 and their men from obstructing the peaceful possession and enjoyment amenities provided to the tenants by the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property, as prayed for ? 5) Reliefs and costs? 3. Both the parties lead the following evidence in oral and documentary: Plaintiff’s Witness PW1: 27.09.2023, :A.V.Abdu Rahiman Musliyar, 30.10.2023 S/o.Abdullah. PW2: 20.02.2024 Suhail.K.S/o.Mahmood Plaintiff’s Exhibits A1: 24.04.1985 CC of settlement deed of SRO Koyilandy Doc No.1501/1985 A2: 03.06.2022 :Land Tax Receipt issued from Village Office A3: 15.07.2016 :Order related to changing Jama in favour of plaintiff issued from Municipality, Koyilandy. A4: 10.03.2022 Building Tax Receipt of Door No.39/302 A issued from Municipality, Koyilandy A5: 10.03.2022 Building Tax Receipt of Door No.39/318 issued from Municipality, Koyilandy. A4: 10.03.2022 Building Tax Receipt of Door No.39/302 A issued from Municipality, Koyilandy A5: 10.03.2022 Building Tax Receipt of Door No.39/318 issued from Municipality, Koyilandy. A6: 10.03.2022 Building Tax Receipt of Door No.39/317 issued from Municipality, Koyilandy. A7: 10.03.2022 Building Tax Receipt of Door No.39/316 issued from Municipality, Koyilandy. A8: 10.03.2022 Building Tax Receipt of Door No.39/314 issued from Municipality A9: 22.02.2022 Building Tax Receipt of Door No.39/312 issued from Municipality, Koyilandy. A10: 22.02.2022 Building Tax Receipt of Door No.39/311 issued from Municipality, Koyilandy. A11: 22.02.2022 Building Tax Receipt of Door No.39/310 issued from Municipality, Koyilandy. A12: 22.02.2022 Building Tax Receipt of Door No.39/309 issued from Municipality, Koyilandy. A13: 22.02.2022 Building Tax Receipt of Door No.39/308 issued from Municipality, Koyilandy A14 22.02.2022 Building Tax Receipt of Door No.39/307 issued from Municipality, Koyilandy. A15 10.03.2022 :Building Tax Receipt of Door No.39/306 issued from Municipality, Koyilandy A16 10.03.2022 :Building Tax Receipt of Door No.39/320 issued from Municipality, Koyilandy. A17: 10.03.2022 Building Tax Receipt of Door No.39/321 issued from Municipality, Koyilandy. A18: 07.03.2022 :Building Tax Receipt of Door No.39/322 issued from Municipality, Koyilandy. A19: 07.03.2022 :Building Tax Receipt of Door No.39/324 issued from Municipality, Koyilandy A20 07.03.2022 :Building Tax Receipt of Door No.39/325 issued from Municipality, Koyilandy. A21 07.03.2022 :Building Tax Receipt of Door No.39/326 issued from Municipality, Koyilandy. A22 10.03.2022 :Building Tax Receipt of Door No.39/327 issued from Municipality A23: 07.03.2022 :Building Tax Receipt of Door No.39/328 issued from Municipality, Koyilandy A24: 07.03.2022 :Building Tax Receipt of Door No.39/329 issued from Municipality, Koyilandy A25: 07.03.2022 :Building Tax Receipt of Door No.39/330 issued from Municipality, Koyilandy. A26: 07.03.2022 :Building Tax Receipt of Door No.39/331 issued from Municipality, Koyilandy. Defendant’s Witness DW1: 02.07.2024 :Ismail, S/o. Ahammed Defendant’s Exhibits:- B1: 28.06.2022 :Reply under RTI Act from Department of Town Planning, Municipality of Koyilandy B2: 23.12.2022 :Report of Senior Public Health Inspector, Koyilandy Municipality. B3: 20.09.2022 :Receipt issued by Secretary/Junior Superintendent of Municipality, Koyilandy B4: 20.09.2022 :Complaint filed by Secretary, Khabaristan Samrakshana Samithy before Sub Inspector, Koyilandy B4(a):20.09.2022 :Receipt issued from Police Station, Koyilandy. B5 : 29.09.2022 :Complaint filed from Police Station, Koyilandy B5(a):29.09.2022 :Receipt issued from Police Station, Koyilandy B6 : 30.01.2024 :Notice issued by Secretary, Municipality of Koyilandy to Khabaristhan Samrakshana Samithy. B7 : 05.12.2023 :Copy of notice issued by Secretary, Municipality of Koyilandy to the General Secretary, Darussalam Arabic Committee. B5 : 29.09.2022 :Complaint filed from Police Station, Koyilandy B5(a):29.09.2022 :Receipt issued from Police Station, Koyilandy B6 : 30.01.2024 :Notice issued by Secretary, Municipality of Koyilandy to Khabaristhan Samrakshana Samithy. B7 : 05.12.2023 :Copy of notice issued by Secretary, Municipality of Koyilandy to the General Secretary, Darussalam Arabic Committee. B8: 15.11.2022 Copy of Writ Petition of WP(C)No.37035/22 filed before Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. Court’s Witness CW1: 09.01.2021 :Akshay Kammath, S/o.M.Ramesh Kammath 4. Learned Tribunal without even questioning the Mutawalliship of the plaintiff, came to a finding that he was not a Mutawalli and declined the injunction on the ground that it is not the role of the Mutawalli to provide amenities to the tenants. 5. During the hearing of this petition, after examining the site plan placed on record, we had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain whether the retaining wall has been constructed or not ,as the dispute was that the retaining has already been constructed. As per the report of the Advocate Commissioner, it is evident that the retaining wall has not been constructed. Contention of respondents 1 to 3 is that this retaining wall cannot be raised without permission of the concerned Municipality or Panchayat much less the Board and under this garb an attempt is being made to raise a commercial building which is impermissible, without the permissions of the aforementioned authorities. 6. Sri.R.Ramdas submitted that the dispute with regard to Mutawalliship has not been adjudicated and it is the bounden duty of the petitioner to protect the property of the Wakf as it is a slopey area and during the rainy season the building can be badly affected. It is only a construction of retaining wall upto the foundation of the building and nothing beyond. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book as well as the report of the Advocate Commissioner. We are of the view that the submissions made by the counsel on the date of hearing when the Advocate Commissioners were appointed that the retaining wall upto the foundation level has been constructed, is not correct since the Commissioners report clearly shows that no such construction has been made. 8. We are of the view that the submissions made by the counsel on the date of hearing when the Advocate Commissioners were appointed that the retaining wall upto the foundation level has been constructed, is not correct since the Commissioners report clearly shows that no such construction has been made. 8. Sri.R.Ramdas on instructions from his client undertakes that except the retaining wall, no other construction will be made and for the purpose of the same, as per the building Rules no permission is required from the Municipality. However, he would also submit that a formal application to the Wakf Board for doing the needful will be made. The said undertaking is recorded. 9. In this view of the matter, we thus do not agree with the findings of the Tribunal and set aside the findings both with regard to the declining of the relief of permanent injunction as well as with regard to the findings regarding the competency of the petitioner as Mutawalli, for, the question of Mutawalli was not the point of consideration or an issue before the Tribunal and has to be adjudicated in other proceedings. Till such time, the petitioner being bounded to protect the property of wakf, is permitted to put up the retaining wall, after complying with all the provisions of law. The Revision is allowed in the aforementioned terms by setting aside the judgment under challenge.