Skip to main content
Sabrang
Sabrang
Communalism Rule of Law

Gyanvapi case: Judgment on suit maintainability expected today

Heavy police deployment to maintain law and order

Sabrangindia 12 Sep 2022

Gyanvapi

The court of district judge Ajay Krishna Vishvesha is expected to pronounce its judgment in the matter pertaining to the maintainability of the Shringar Gauri – Gyanvapi case today. Basically, the court is expected to rule if the suit brought up by Hindu women, who want to offer prayers at the temple of Shringar Gauri on the premises of the Gyanvapi mosque that stands adjacent to the Kashi Vishwanath temple, is maintainable under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.

What is Order 7 Rule 11?

According to Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), a court can reject a plaint:

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.

Defendant’s stand

On July 12, 2022, Anjuman Intezamia Masjid (AIM) which is the mosque management authority, and the defendant in the case, finished presenting their arguments against the maintainability of the suit under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).  

According to S M Yasin, general secretary of AIM, “This case cannot go on. The matter has been settled when it comes to religious structures from before 1947. Moreover, the Masjid is Waqf property.”

Yasin was referring to the Places of Worship Act according to which the character of a place of worship cannot be changed from what it was on Independence Day i.e August 15, 1947. Thus, AIM contends that the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) are applicable to this case.

Petitioners clarify they only want to offer prayers where they took place before 1993

On July 13, 2022, four women petitioners in the Shringar Gauri case related to the Gyanvapi mosque have, through their lawyer, clarified before the court that they have neither sought possession of the mosque property, nor do they want the right to worship inside it; they only want to conduct prayers where they took place till 1993.

Hearings concluded on August 24.

Heavy police deployment in and around Varanasi

In light of the upcoming judgment and its communally sensitive nature, there is heavy security deployment in Varanasi. Prohibitory orders have been imposed under Section 144, and police patrolling is on.

In a video address on Twitter on Sunday, Varanasi Police Commissioner Satish Bharadwaj said, “In light of the upcoming judgment, we held a meeting with all SHOs, ACPs, Additional DCPs and DCPs. Section 144 has been imposed. There is adequate force deployment everywhere, especially in mixed population areas.”

Police also visited the court premises with sniffer dogs and a bomb detection squad on Sunday, and also checked the CCTVs at the venue. Police are maintaining watch not just in Varanasi city, but also nearby rural areas:

 

 

Brief background of the case

Readers would recall that in August 2021, five Hindu women – Rakhi Singh, Laxmi Devi, Sita Sahu, Manju Vyas and Rekha Pathak, who are all Varanasi residents – had moved the Civil Court (Senior Division), demanding that the Maa Shringar Gauri Temple be reopened, and people be allowed to offer prayers before the idols that are still kept there. Anjuman Intezamia Masjid (AIM), which is the mosque management authority, is the defendant in the case.

On April 8, 2022, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Varanasi, Ravi Kumar Diwakar had appointed Advocate Commissioner Ajai Kumar to carry out the survey and asked him to submit a report at the next hearing on May 10. The AIM opposed this, but their petition against the survey was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court on April 21. The lower court in Varanasi, on April 26, then again passed an order to carry out the survey.

The authorities began conducting the video survey on May 5, and AIM moved SC where it highlighted how the Places of Worship Act, 1991, prohibits changing the character of a place of worship from what it was on August 15, 1947. Thus, AIM said that the suit was not maintainable as per Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

The SC then transferred the case from the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ravi Kumar Diwakar, who had originally ordered the survey, to the court of District Judge Ajay Krishna Vishvesha to decide upon the maintainability of the suit given Order 7, Rule 11.

Meanwhile, Rakhi Singh withdrew from the case.

Related:

Gyanvapi case: Has the mosque committee’s new lawyer backed out?

Gyanvapi case: Lawyer and family member of Hindu petitioner receives death threat

Gyanvapi case: SC to wait for Varanasi district court’s decision on suit maintainability

Gyanvapi case: Hindu petitioners submit that the mosque stands on land owned by Hindu deity

Gyanvapi case: Judgment on suit maintainability expected today

Heavy police deployment to maintain law and order

Gyanvapi

The court of district judge Ajay Krishna Vishvesha is expected to pronounce its judgment in the matter pertaining to the maintainability of the Shringar Gauri – Gyanvapi case today. Basically, the court is expected to rule if the suit brought up by Hindu women, who want to offer prayers at the temple of Shringar Gauri on the premises of the Gyanvapi mosque that stands adjacent to the Kashi Vishwanath temple, is maintainable under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.

What is Order 7 Rule 11?

According to Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), a court can reject a plaint:

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.

Defendant’s stand

On July 12, 2022, Anjuman Intezamia Masjid (AIM) which is the mosque management authority, and the defendant in the case, finished presenting their arguments against the maintainability of the suit under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).  

According to S M Yasin, general secretary of AIM, “This case cannot go on. The matter has been settled when it comes to religious structures from before 1947. Moreover, the Masjid is Waqf property.”

Yasin was referring to the Places of Worship Act according to which the character of a place of worship cannot be changed from what it was on Independence Day i.e August 15, 1947. Thus, AIM contends that the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) are applicable to this case.

Petitioners clarify they only want to offer prayers where they took place before 1993

On July 13, 2022, four women petitioners in the Shringar Gauri case related to the Gyanvapi mosque have, through their lawyer, clarified before the court that they have neither sought possession of the mosque property, nor do they want the right to worship inside it; they only want to conduct prayers where they took place till 1993.

Hearings concluded on August 24.

Heavy police deployment in and around Varanasi

In light of the upcoming judgment and its communally sensitive nature, there is heavy security deployment in Varanasi. Prohibitory orders have been imposed under Section 144, and police patrolling is on.

In a video address on Twitter on Sunday, Varanasi Police Commissioner Satish Bharadwaj said, “In light of the upcoming judgment, we held a meeting with all SHOs, ACPs, Additional DCPs and DCPs. Section 144 has been imposed. There is adequate force deployment everywhere, especially in mixed population areas.”

Police also visited the court premises with sniffer dogs and a bomb detection squad on Sunday, and also checked the CCTVs at the venue. Police are maintaining watch not just in Varanasi city, but also nearby rural areas:

 

 

Brief background of the case

Readers would recall that in August 2021, five Hindu women – Rakhi Singh, Laxmi Devi, Sita Sahu, Manju Vyas and Rekha Pathak, who are all Varanasi residents – had moved the Civil Court (Senior Division), demanding that the Maa Shringar Gauri Temple be reopened, and people be allowed to offer prayers before the idols that are still kept there. Anjuman Intezamia Masjid (AIM), which is the mosque management authority, is the defendant in the case.

On April 8, 2022, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Varanasi, Ravi Kumar Diwakar had appointed Advocate Commissioner Ajai Kumar to carry out the survey and asked him to submit a report at the next hearing on May 10. The AIM opposed this, but their petition against the survey was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court on April 21. The lower court in Varanasi, on April 26, then again passed an order to carry out the survey.

The authorities began conducting the video survey on May 5, and AIM moved SC where it highlighted how the Places of Worship Act, 1991, prohibits changing the character of a place of worship from what it was on August 15, 1947. Thus, AIM said that the suit was not maintainable as per Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

The SC then transferred the case from the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ravi Kumar Diwakar, who had originally ordered the survey, to the court of District Judge Ajay Krishna Vishvesha to decide upon the maintainability of the suit given Order 7, Rule 11.

Meanwhile, Rakhi Singh withdrew from the case.

Related:

Gyanvapi case: Has the mosque committee’s new lawyer backed out?

Gyanvapi case: Lawyer and family member of Hindu petitioner receives death threat

Gyanvapi case: SC to wait for Varanasi district court’s decision on suit maintainability

Gyanvapi case: Hindu petitioners submit that the mosque stands on land owned by Hindu deity

Related Articles

Sunday

03

Jan

Pan-India

Saturday

05

Dec

05 pm onwards

Rise in Rage!

North Gate, JNU campus

Thursday

26

Nov

10 am onwards

Delhi Chalo

Pan India

Theme

Stop Hate

Hate and Harmony in 2021

A recap of all that transpired across India in terms of hate speech and even outright hate crimes, as well as the persecution of those who dared to speak up against hate. This disturbing harvest of hate should now push us to do more to forge harmony.
Taliban 2021

Taliban in Afghanistan: A look back

Communalism Combat had taken a deep dive into the lives of people of Afghanistan under the Taliban regime. Here we reproduce some of our archives documenting the plight of hapless Afghanis, especially women, who suffered the most under the hardline regime.
2020

Milestones 2020

In the year devastated by the Covid 19 Pandemic, India witnessed apathy against some of its most marginalised people and vilification of dissenters by powerful state and non state actors. As 2020 draws to a close, and hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers continue their protest in the bitter North Indian cold. Read how Indians resisted all attempts to snatch away fundamental and constitutional freedoms.
Migrant Diaries

Migrant Diaries

The 2020 COVID pandemic brought to fore the dismal lives that our migrant workers lead. Read these heartbreaking stories of how they lived before the pandemic, how the lockdown changed their lives and what they’re doing now.

Campaigns

Sunday

03

Jan

Pan-India

Saturday

05

Dec

05 pm onwards

Rise in Rage!

North Gate, JNU campus

Thursday

26

Nov

10 am onwards

Delhi Chalo

Pan India

IN FACT

Analysis

Stop Hate

Hate and Harmony in 2021

A recap of all that transpired across India in terms of hate speech and even outright hate crimes, as well as the persecution of those who dared to speak up against hate. This disturbing harvest of hate should now push us to do more to forge harmony.
Taliban 2021

Taliban in Afghanistan: A look back

Communalism Combat had taken a deep dive into the lives of people of Afghanistan under the Taliban regime. Here we reproduce some of our archives documenting the plight of hapless Afghanis, especially women, who suffered the most under the hardline regime.
2020

Milestones 2020

In the year devastated by the Covid 19 Pandemic, India witnessed apathy against some of its most marginalised people and vilification of dissenters by powerful state and non state actors. As 2020 draws to a close, and hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers continue their protest in the bitter North Indian cold. Read how Indians resisted all attempts to snatch away fundamental and constitutional freedoms.
Migrant Diaries

Migrant Diaries

The 2020 COVID pandemic brought to fore the dismal lives that our migrant workers lead. Read these heartbreaking stories of how they lived before the pandemic, how the lockdown changed their lives and what they’re doing now.

Archives