Allahabad High Court: Prakash Padia, J., reserved a judgment in a plea which was filed challenging the maintainability of a civil suit pending with respect to land-title dispute in the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi Masjid case.
It was alleged that the Gyanvapi Masjid was built after demolishing the Kashi Vishwanath temple, the suit was filed by the Temple’s Trust which mentioned that the mosque was built by the remains of the temple. In the instant petition maintainability of the said suit was challenged.
The counsel for the petitioner, Mr SFA Naqvi, assisted by Mr Syed Ahmad Faizan, Mr Punit Gupta, Mr Rahees Ansari, Mr Akhlaq Ahmad, Mr Zaheer Asgar, Ms Poorva Agarwal and Ms Fatma Anjum had argued that the impugned suit was barred by Section 9 as well as Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, they further contended that Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 barred filing of suit or any other legal proceedings with respect to conversion of religious character of any place of worship, existing on August 15, 1947.
Counsel for the respondent, Mr Ajay Kumar Singh, Mr Ashish Kumar Singh, Mr Vijay Shankar Rastogi, Mr Sunil Kumar Rastogi, Mr Chandra Shekhar Seth, Mr Tejas Singh, Mr Tarun Tripathi, Mr Amar Nath Tripathi and Mr Vineet Sankalp contended that Section 4(1) and 4(2) of Act No. 42 of 1991 applies only in the case of ‘Undisputed Structure’ and not in case of ‘Disputed Structure’ like the present case, as such it was incumbent upon Trial Court to determine “Religious Character” of the Place in dispute which could have been done only when parties lead evidence according to their respective pleadings. It was further contended that the Bar created under Sections 4(1) and 4(2) of the Act No. 42 of 1991, will not affect present Suit No. 610 of 1991, Section 4(3)(d) of the Act No. 42 of 1991 negatives/ removes aforesaid bar also. Acquiescence or silence about forcible act of Mughal Emperor in demolishing part of the Temple and illegal constructions over part of the Temple, cannot affect the maintainability of present Suit No. 610 of 1991.[Anjuman Intazamia Masazid Varanasi v. Ist A.D.J. Varanasi, Matters under Article 227 No. – 3341 of 2017, order dated 15-03-2021]
Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
