The petition has been filed on behalf of the deity, "Lord Sri Agreshwar Mahadev Nagnatheswar Virajman," through next friend, Advocate Hari Shankar Jain, along with several other devotees. The matter is listed for a hearing on Monday.

For context, the petitioner before the High Court had moved a regular suit in 2015 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Agra, asserting that the world-famous monument is actually an ancient Hindu temple named "Tejo Mahalaya", dedicated to Lord Shiva.

The plaintiffs sought a decree of declaration and injunction to the effect that the subject monument is a Hindu temple and, therefore, that the Plaintiffs and the members of the Hindu Community be permitted to perform Pooja within the precincts of the Taj Mahal.

They had specifically asserted that Hindus have a fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution of India to perform 'Darshan' and 'Pooja' within the monument.

In 2019, an application was made for the appointment of an advocate commission to survey the Taj Mahal.

However, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra, rejected the application on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to file revenue documents (like Khasra or Khatauni) to ascertain the exact Gata number, and because the property's described boundaries and area (77 bighas) did not tally with the defendants' documents.

A revision petition against this order was held to be non-maintainable by the Additional District Judge, Agra, in April this year.

Challenging both these orders, the plaintiffs have moved the High Court, wherein they have referred to the following specific historical and architectural claims made in the original suit:

• The ancient Temple of Tejo Mahalaya, in which the deity Agreshwar Mahadev Naagnatheshwar Virajman is presiding, was constructed by Raja Paramardi Dev in 1155-56 AD.
• Over time, the monument came under the control and ownership of Raja Maan Singh and was later succeeded by Raja Jai Singh of Jaipur in the 17th century.
• Mughal ruler Shahjahan usurped the 'Tejo Mahalaya' palace from Raja Jai Singh to convert it into a memorial to his dead queen. For this conversion, some portions of the subject monument were altered to incorporate a few Islamic features.
• There are at least 109 archaeological features and historical evidence to establish beyond any doubt that the suit property is a Hindu temple.
• The top of the marble dome features a 'Kalash' and is “decorated with lotus petals”, signifying a Hindu place of worship.
• A structure on the south-east corner of the property in suit is recorded as a "Gaushala" in the Archaeological Survey of India records. Needless to mention a "Gaushala" is an integral part of every Hindu Temple complex, but not of a Muslim mausoleum.

The suit also claims that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) had 'unlawfully' allowed the Muslims to perform 'Namaj' on Fridays, while restricting visitors and locking away several floors of the building complex.

The plaintiffs claim that the use of the suit property for purposes other than Hindu 'pooja' and worship of the Deity is unlawful

Regarding the order in question, the petitioners argue that the reasoning adopted by the Court suffers from “patent illegality, material irregularity and failure to exercise jurisdiction”.

They contend that the application was rejected on “considerations that are wholly irrelevant to the purpose of appointment of Commissioner”. The plea emphasizes that there is admittedly no dispute regarding the identity of the suit property, as it is a widely known ancient monument.

Furthermore, the petitioners argue that the physical features, structural characteristics, and locked portions of the monument “cannot be effectively proved through oral evidence alone”.

"…in the suit it is clear that plaintiffs have described regarding different description existing in the monument in question showing the existence of a Temple and a building having Hindu Religious Character and such signs and symbols available in the building itself cannot be proved without there being the authoritative photograph to be filed before the court. It is worth to mention that subject building is a protected monument and the plaintiffs have no right to take photographs within or outside the premises of the monument", the petition submits.

They state that they do not have unrestricted access to the ASI-controlled monument, making a court-appointed photographer and videographer essential for effective adjudication.

Against this backdrop, the petitioners have prayed that the High Court set aside the orders of the Agra Courts and direct the trial court to decide the application for an Advocate-Commissioner on its merits.

Additionally, an interim stay application requests that the High Court direct the Director of the ASI to take photographs of the building from the inside and outside, with the petitioners present, and to file them in the present proceeding.

The petition has been filed through Advocate Saumya Srivastava.