Allahabad HC rejects mosque committee’s plea in Gyanvapi case
    Date :01-Jun-2023

Allahabad HC
 
 
PRAYAGRAJ :
 
THE Allahabad High Court on Wednesday dismissed the plea of the Anjuman Intezamia Committee, which represents the Muslim side in the Gyanvapi Shrinagar Gauri case, challenging the maintainability of the Hindu side’s case. Justice J J Munir dismissed the mosque management committee’s revision petition that contended that the suit is barred under the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which prohibits conversion of any place of worship and provides for themaintenance of its religiouscharacter as it existed on August15, 1947.
 
The Anjuman IntezamiaMasjid (AIM) committee hadfiled the petition in theHigh Court against the orderof the district judge of Varanasi in September last yearthat turned down its objectionson the maintainability of thesuit filed by the five Hinduwomen. The suit filed in August 2021sought permission for daily worship at Maa Shringar Gauri Sthal in the Gyanvapi complex. The District Judge had on September 12, 2022 dismissed the plea of AIM filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). It had observed that the suit by the Hindu women was not barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, TheWakf Act 1995, and the UP Shri Kashi VishwanathTemple Act, 1983 as was being claimed by the AIM.
 
The counsel for the petitioner, SFA Naqvi, contended before the court that the claim of the Hindu side that the devotees were restrained from worshipping Shringar Gauri and other deities on the outer wall of Gyanvapi in 1993 is an “artificial” claim and an example of clever drafting. According to him, no order was passed by the then state Government in writing in 1993. He said that the aforesaid claim has been made only to avoid the application of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. He pointed out that even if the claim of the Hindu side is accepted, why did they not file suit in 1993 when they were so restrained or thereafter. Hence, the suit filed before the Varanasi court is illegal under the Limitation Act which bars the filing of any suit for declaration after three years of an incident.