1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code to revise an order of the District Judge of Stanmore East granting a temporary injunction in a suit pending before the District Munsif of Tiruturaipundi. The question relates to the office of Imam in a mosque. The plaintiffs claim to be the Imams of the mosque and the right to officiate in all religious ceremonies in the houses of the Muhammadans of the locality. The defendants' case is that they are the Peish Imams and they have got the right to officiate in the mosque and also at the religious ceremonies in the houses of the Muhammadans. With regard to the office of Imam, it is a well-recognised office and when there is a dispute about it, it is open to the Court to issue a temporary in-j unction in the interests of the people as well as of the disputants, and in order to avoid breach of any peace. But the injunction that has been issued is too wide in its terms. Even granting that the plaintiffs have a right to be the Imams of the mosque the Muhammadans of the locality cannot be compelled to engage their services at the marriages, and other ceremonies in their houses. In the case of Muhammadan marriages the presence of the Imam or Kazi is not absolutely necessary; the marriage being a civil contract. In order to evidence the contract a Kazi is present but the presence of the Kazi is not of absolute necessity for the validity of a Muhammadan marriage and, therefore, the people of the locality are not bound to call in any man obnoxious to them. Therefore, the injunction restraining the defendants from officiating at the marriage and other ceremonies in the houses of the Muhammadans is clearly illegal and has been passed without jurisdiction. Katil Sheik Ummar Saheb v. Khazi Budan Khan Saheb (sic) 898 : 37 M. 228 is an authority for the position that the Kazi has not the exclusive privilege or the right to officiate at the marriage of Muhammadans.
2. The next question is whether this portion of the injunction can be separated from the other portion which relates to the leading of worship in the mosque. If the plaintiffs as Imams have the right to lead the congregational services in the mosque no other person has the right to interfere with it. I, therefore, set aside the order of the District Judge so far as it relates to the performance of ceremonies in the houses of the Muhammadans as it was passed without jurisdiction. It is open to the Muhammadans of the locality to engage the services of anybody to be present at the marriages and other religious ceremonies in their houses. With regard to the other portion it cannot be said that it was passed without jurisdiction though I must say that some of the Judge's observations as regards the right of the plaintiffs are premature. With this modification the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.