In the case of Committee of Management Anjuman Intezaria Masajid Varanasi the Allahabad High Court has ordered the District Judge, Varanasi to make sure that all of the records of the Hindu worshippers’ complaint are delivered to the HC by the day after tomorrow in response to a revision petition contesting the Varanasi Court’s September 12 judgement in the continuing Gyanvapi issue (October 21). It should be noted that the Gyanvapi Masjid Committee filed the current revision petition in an effort to overturn a Varanasi Court decision (dated September 12, 2022) that dismissed a claim it had made under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC regarding the maintainability of the Hindu Worshippers’ suit. The Lower Court Records pertaining to the order of the District Judge, Varanasi were made available to the Court today in accordance with the High Court’s order from October 17. However, the Masjid committee argued before the Justice J. J. Munir bench that the complete records of the suit are required for the proper resolution of the issues raised by this revision. As a result, the District Judge in Varanasi was instructed to make sure that the High Court receives all of the suit’s records by the day after tomorrow, with the exception of the photostat copies that have already been provided.
Facts: Hindu women devotees who are the plaintiffs have essentially asked for permission to worship Maa Shringar Gauri on the exterior of the mosque complex close to the Kashi Vishwanath temple. The Anjuman Committee, which oversees the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, had contested the maintainability of that particular lawsuit, claiming that the Hindu Worshippers’ suit was unlawful (Places of Worship Act, 1991). The plaintiffs contend that the site of the current mosque was formerly a Hindu temple that Mughal ruler Aurangzeb destroyed before the current mosque was erected there. The Anjuman Masjid committee had contested their lawsuit, arguing in their objection and order 7 rule 11 CPC application that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 expressly precludes such actions.
Judgement: The Court stated when it scheduled the matter for the day after tomorrow, or on October 21, 2022, “Needless to mention that the records supplied shall be photostat copies of the original records, fully validated by the leamed District Judge, and not the original records.” It should be recalled that the Varanasi Court rejected the Anjuman committee’s appeal last month (filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC), which questioned the suit’s maintainability on behalf of five Hindu women plaintiffs who sought permission to worship inside the Gyanvapi Mosque complex. The Masjid Committee then filed the present revision petition before the Allahabad High Court to challenge that particular ruling. According to the Varanasi District Judge Ajay Krishna Vishwesha’s order from last month, contrary to the assertions made by the Anjuman Masjid Committee, the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991, the Waqf Act of 1995, and the U.P. Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act of 1983 do not preclude the plaintiffs’ lawsuit (which manages Gyanvapi Masjid). The Court specifically held that since the Hindu worshippers claim that they continued to worship Hindu deities inside the masjid complex even after August 15, 1947 (which is the cut off date provided under the Places of Worship Act), the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 will not apply here in this case. Because the plaintiffs in the current case are requesting the right to worship Maa Sringar Gauri, Lord Ganesh, and Lord Hanuman on the subject property, the Civil Court is qualified to rule on the matter. The Court specifically held that since the Hindu worshippers claim that they continued to worship Hindu deities inside the masjid complex even after August 15, 1947 (which is the cut off date provided under the Places of Worship Act), the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 will not apply here in this case. Because the plaintiffs in the current case are requesting the right to worship Maa Sringar Gauri, Lord Ganesh, and Lord Hanuman on the subject property, the Civil Court is qualified to rule on the matter.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SNIGDHA DUBEY
