The Allahabad High Court on Thursday stayed an order of a Varanasi court docket.archaeological survey“Kashi Vishwanath Temple-Gyanvapi Mosque Complex to find out whether or not a temple ever existed on the web site of the mosque.
Justice Prakash Padia additionally stayed all additional proceedings earlier than the Varanasi fast-track civil court docket on a petition searching for an archaeological survey of the temple-mosque complicated.
Justice Padia stayed the order of the Varanasi Civil Court, ruling that the subordinate court docket handed its order ignoring the truth that the High Court had challenged the sustainability of the go well with filed earlier within the decrease court docket for survey. He had reserved his choice on the granting petition.
The High Court delivered its order on two petitions filed by the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board and Anjuman Inazaniya Masjid, Varanasi, respectively, difficult the April 8 order of the Varanasi Fast-Track Court.
Justice Padia mentioned, “It is clear from the perusal of the record that the judgment in all the pending petitions was reserved by this court after hearing learned counsel for the parties on March 15 this year.”
“The court below is fully aware that the judgment has already been reserved on March 15,” he mentioned.
Justice Padia mentioned, “In this view of the case, the court below should not have proceeded and decided on the application filed by the plaintiff in the original suit for survey by the Archaeological Survey of India.”
“In the opinion of this court, the trial court should have waited for the decision on the petitions pending before the High Court and should not have proceeded with the matter till the judgment is delivered,” he mentioned.
The High Court additionally directed that every one proceedings on the pending go well with for the survey of the dual temple complicated within the decrease court docket shall be stayed until the following date of listening to.
Giving three weeks time to the counsel for all of the respondents to file their reply on the petitions of UP Sunni Central Waqf Board and Anjuman Intajamia Masjid, Varanasi, the High Court mounted October 8 for listening to on the problem.
The counsel for the petitioners had earlier argued that the order of the Varanasi court docket was “not legally tenable” because the go well with on which the trial court docket had handed its order was non-maintainable.
The counsel had argued that Section 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, prohibits the submitting of any go well with or any authorized continuing in any court docket searching for any change within the non secular character of anyplace of worship. Prevents beginning as a result of it exists. 15 August 1947.
The counsel for the petitioners argued that as per the 1991 Act, no aid may very well be sought or granted on any petition searching for any change within the standing of any non secular place because it existed on August 15, 1947.
He additionally argued that when the High Court had already reserved its verdict on the problem of sustainability of the trial pending earlier than the Civil Judge of Varanasi, the subordinate court docket couldn’t resolve on the problem.
The Varanasi Senior Division Civil Court had given its order in 2019 on a petition filed by advocate Vijay Shankar Rastogi.
Rastogi had moved the Varanasi Civil Court because the ‘subsequent buddy’ of the “self-existing Bhagwan Vishweshwar Kashi Vishwanath” within the standing of the deity as a ‘authorized particular person’ below the precept of “legal legend”.
According to this doctrine, non-living entities, together with banks, firms and even deities, however not mosques, are thought-about survivors for the adjudication of any issues involving them and such entities are represented in court docket. often called their “next”. Friend”.
The civil court docket in Varanasi had requested the Uttar Pradesh authorities to conduct an inquiry into the disputed compound of the dual temple by a five-member ASI group.
The subordinate court docket had additionally stipulated {that a} five-member ASI group of eminent archaeologists ought to have not less than two members from the minority group.
.
With inputs from TheIndianEXPRESS
