Gyanvapi Case Order Today-All You Want To Know About The Present Case

Near the Lalita ghat in the heart of Varanasi stands the Kashi Vishwanath Temple. Adjacent to the temple is the Gyanvapi Mosque. This property dispute has also become another potentially controversial court case. In a nutshell, the controversy is whether the Gyanvapi Mosque was built after destroying some parts of the Kashi Vishwanath Temple. Earlier this year, in August a local court in Varanasi had reserved its verdict/order on a petition/plea moved by the Anjuman Islamia Masjid Committee which questioned the maintainability of the suit filed by five women who were from the Hindu faith. The suit sought year-long access to offer prayers at the Hindu shrine behind the western wall of the Gyanvapi Mosque complex. Back then when the property dispute began in the early 90s, the trial court at Varanasi began the proceedings, and later the same was challenged before the Allahabad High Court. The petitioners, Anjuman Intezamiya challenged the validity/maintainability of the said suit on the ground that Section 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 bars any such suit or proceeding. On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the original character of the Temple does not change, and even today, the same is continuing. Therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1991 do not apply in the said case. The Court, after considering the contentions of the parties, stayed the proceedings before the trial court by an order dated October 13, 1998. Now, in this suit which has been moved by Hindu women, it has been claimed and alleged that the premises of Gyanvapi Mosque was once a Hindu temple and it was demolished by Mughal Ruler Aurangzeb thereafter, the mosque was built. On the other hand, the Muslim side had argued (Anjuman Masjid committee) has argued that the suit is specifically barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. District Judge A. K. Vishvesha had reserved the order back in August and it is likely to be pronounced on September 12, 2022. Here are five things one should know about the controversy and the law which revolves around the same: 1. Order 11 Rule 7 application to be decided In a civil suit/proceeding the suit is instituted by the presentation of a plaint, hence under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 7 Rule 11 talks about the instances when the court "shall" reject a plaint. There are numerous grounds on which the court can reject the plaint. It says that the court shall reject it where it (a) does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails comply with the provision of Rule 9. In the Gyanvapi-Kashi dispute, the Muslim parties have claimed that the suit should be rejected on the basis on clause (d) which says that the suit shall be rejected where it is barred by any law. Hence, in this case the reference has been made to the Places of Worship Act of 1991 which bars 2. Places of worship act and the suit in question The main hurdle behind the whole dispute is a law passed in 1991 which restricts and prohibits any litigation which disrupts the status quo of any monument which stood as it is before 1947. The provisions of the Act make it clear that all places of worship in the country will remain as they were on August 15, 1947, and cases seeking conversion of a place of worship to that of another religion or faith "shall abate." Under the Act, Section 5 of the 1991 Act states that "nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the place or place of worship commonly known as Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid situated in Ayodhya in the State of Uttar Pradesh and to any suit, appeal or other proceeding relating to the said place or place of worship". Section 3 of the Act prohibits of conversion of any place of worship, and section 4 states that "any suit, appeal or other proceeding" connected with the conversion of "the religious character" of a place of worship as it existed on 15 August 1947 pending "shall abate" and will not be considered by any court, tribunal or other authority. A challenge to The Places of Worship Act by former BJP spokesperson Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay is pending before the Supreme Court, which on 12 March 2021 issued notice to the union government seeking its response. The petition in the Supreme Court reflects the divergent views on the subject, between...

Gyanvapi Case Order Today-All You Want To Know About The Present Case

Areeb Uddin Ahmed

Tags