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. Hearings concluded on Wednesday.
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.
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.
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