Gyanvapi case: Petitioner moves caveat before Allahabad High Court

caveat before Allahabad HC
Image Courtesy: newindianexpress.com

Now that the court of district judge Ajay Krishna Vishvesha has ruled that the suit brought about by Hindu women petitioners seeking the right to offer prayers at the temple of the deity Shringar Gauri located on the premises of the Gyanvapi Mosque is maintainable, the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid (AIM), which is the Gyanvapi mosque management authority, is considering moving Allahabad High Court to challenge the order.

S M Yasin, general secretary of AIM, told SabrangIndia, “We are holding discussions with our lawyer and will soon challenge today’s judgement before the Allahabad High Court.”

But in fresh developments, Rekha Pathak, one of the four Hindu women petitioners, has filed a caveat with the Allahabad High court seeking to oppose any plea by the AIM. LiveLaw reports that the Caveat states that if any revision plea is moved before the HC by AIM, then the Caveator i.e Rekha Pathak must be given an opportunity for hearing so as to oppose the plea.

LiveLaw further reports that Pathak’s Caveat states that as she is one of the affected parties by virtue of being one of the petitioners, she prays that she may be heard in opposition to any Civil Revision plea under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a stay on the September 12 order of the district court.

#JustIn
Hindu worshipper Rekha Pathak files a caveat in the #AllahabadHighCourt in connection with the #GyanvyapiMosqueCase.
The plea prays that the caveator should be allowed to oppose the revision/interim relief plea against the #VaranasiCourt order in the #GyanvapiCase. pic.twitter.com/vlaHQAQLmC
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) September 14, 2022

Readers would recall that on September 12, the district court had dismissed the AIM’s plea challenging the maintainability of the suit brought by four Hindu women – Rekha Pathak, Sita Sahu, Manju Vyas and Laxmi Devi. The women had claimed that prayers as per Hindu tradition were offered at the shrine of the deity Shringar Gauri till 1993, after which they were discontinued. They sought permission to resume such prayers.

The AIM had argued that the suit was not maintainable under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) that says that a court can reject a plaint if “the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.” According to the AIM, in this case, it was barred by the Places of Worship Act which forbids changing the character of any place of worship from what it was on Independence Day i.e August 15, 1947.

But the court held that the suit was neither barred by the Places of Worship Act, nor the Waqf Act, and was thus maintainable under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the court dismissed the plea by AIM. Hearings will now continue in the main suit, i.e the plea where Hindu women have demanded the right to offer prayers at the temple of the deity Shringar Gauri, on September 22.