BREAKING: [Gyanvapi] Allahabad HC Dismisses Masjid Committee's Plea Against Maintainability Of Hindu Worshippers' Suit In Varanasi Court
The Allahabad High Court today dismissed the revision plea moved by the Anjuman Intazamia Mosque Committee (which manages the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi) challenging a Varanasi Court order (of September 12, 2022) dismissing its Order 7 Rule 11 CPC plea that was filed last year objecting to the maintainability of Hindu Worshippers' suit filed in Varanasi Court seeking worshipping rights...
The Allahabad High Court today dismissed the revision plea moved by the Anjuman Intazamia Mosque Committee (which manages the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi) challenging a Varanasi Court order (of September 12, 2022) dismissing its Order 7 Rule 11 CPC plea that was filed last year objecting to the maintainability of Hindu Worshippers' suit filed in Varanasi Court seeking worshipping rights inside the Gyanvapi Mosque compound.
In essence, the HC has rejected the mosque committee's challenge to the 5 Hindu women worshippers' suit pending before the Varanasi Court. Last year in December, the bench of Justice JJ Munir reserved its judgment after hearing counsels for both parties at length.
With this, the Court has upheld the September 12, 2022 order of the Varanasi Court holding the said suit to be maintainable.
BREAKING| #AllahabadHighCourt DISMISSES Masjid Committee's plea challenging maintainability of 5 Hindu Women Worshippers' suit filed in #VaranasiCourt seeking right to worship inside #GYANVAPI Mosque premises.Court UPHOLDS Varanasi Court's Sept 12, 2022 order holding the suit… pic.twitter.com/CoUgHyF0Rw— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) May 31, 2023
It may be noted that the Masjid Committee had moved the High Court in October 2022, days after the Varanasi Court dismissed its plea (filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC) challenging the maintainability of a suit filed by five Hindu women (plaintiffs) seeking worshipping rights in the Gyanvapi Mosque compound.
In its order, the Varanasi District Judge Ajay Krishna Vishwesha had observed that the suit of the plaintiffs is not barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, The Waqf Act 1995, and the U.P. Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 as was being claimed by the Anjuman Masjid Committee (which manages Gyanvapi Masjid).
Read more about the Varanasi Court's order here: Plaint Avers Hindu Deities Were Worshipped Inside Gyanvapi Mosque Complex Even After Aug 15, 1947; Places Of Worship Act No Bar To Suit: Varanasi Court
The Background of the Case
The plaintiffs (Hindu women worshippers) have moved a suit before the Varanasi Court essentially seeking a right to worship Maa Shringar Gauri on the outer wall of the mosque complex located next to the Kashi Vishwanath temple.
The plaintiffs have claimed that the present Mosque premises was once a Hindu temple and it was demolished by Mughal Ruler Aurangzeb and thereafter, the present mosque structure was built there.
The maintainability of that very suit was challenged by the Anjuman Committee (which manages Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi) last year by way of filing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC arguing that Hindu Worshippers' suit is barred by Law (Places of Worship Act, 1991).
However, rejecting the objection to the suit, the Varanasi Court, in its September 12 order, specifically held that since the Hindu Worshippers claim that the Hindu deities were being worshipped by them inside the masjid complex even after August 15, 1947 (which is the cut off date provided under the Places of Worship Act), therefore, the 1991 act will have no applicability in this case.
"In the present case, the plaintiffs are demanding right to worship Maa Sringar Gauri, Lord Ganesh, and Lord Hanuman at the disputed property, therefore, Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide this case. Further, according to the pleadings of the plaintiffs, they were worshipping Maa Sringar Gauri, Lord Hanuman, Lord Ganesh at the disputed place incessantly since a long time till 1993. After 1993, they were allowed to worship the above mentioned Gods only once in a year under the regulatory of State of Uttar Pradesh. Thus, according to plaintiffs, they worshipped Maa Sringar Gauri, Lord Hanuman at the disputed place regularly even after 15th August, 1947. Therefore, The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 does not operate as bar on the suit of the plaintiffs and the suit of plaintiffs is not barred by Section 9 of the Act," the Court remarked.
Appearances
Counsel for Revisionist: Sr. Advocate Syed Ahmed Faizan, Zaheer Asghar, Fatma Anjum, Mahmood Alam
Counsel for Opposite Party: Prabhash Pandey, Arya Suman Pandey, Saurabh Tiwari, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Vineet Sankalp, Hari Shankar Jain, Mani Munjal, Parth Yadav
Additional Advocate General M.C. Chaturvedi assisted by Chief Standing Counsel-V Bipin Bihari Pandey, along with Additional Chief Standing Counsel Rananjay Singh, Standing Counsels Shrawan Kumar Dubey, Girijesh Kumar Tripathi and Hare Ram Tripathi appeared for the appearing on behalf of defendant-respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8
Case title - Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi vs. Smt. Rakhi Singh and others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 171 [CIVIL REVISION No. - 101 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 171