Plea seeking right to worship Shringar Gauri at Gyanvapi maintainable: Court

VARANASI: District judge Ajay Kumar Vishvesha on Monday rejected the petition of Anjuman Intezamia Masajid (AIM) - the Gyanvapi mosque management committee - challenging the maintainability of a plaint filed by five Hindu women seeking rights for daily worship of Shringar Gauri and other deities in Gyanvapi mosque compound adjacent to Kashi Vishwanath Temple.
In his 26-page order turning down AIM plea against maintainability of case No. 693/2021 Rakhi Singh vs state of UP and others under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, the district judge stated, "In view of the discussions and analysis of this case, I have come to the conclusion that the suit of the plaintiffs is not barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (Act no. 42 of 1991), The Waqf Act, 1995 (Act no. 43 of 1995) and the UP Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 (Act no. 29 of 1983) and the application 35C filed by defendant no. 4 (AIM) is liable to be dismissed."
Dismissing AIM's application 35C, the court asked it to file a written statement against the points of suit on September 22 when other issues could also be framed.
Furthermore, applications pending under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC by several applicants to become a party in the case will also be disposed of on September 22.
"With today's (Monday) order, path has been paved for further hearing in the case of Hindu woman plaintiffs seeking worshipping rights," said Vishnu Jain, advocate of four Varanasi-based plaintiffs - from number 2 to 5 (Laxmi Devi, Sita Sahu, Manju Vyas and Rekha Pathak).
Expressing dissatisfaction over the district judge's order, senior AIM lawyer Merajuddin Siddaqui said, "We would soon file a revision petition in the High Court against this order."
The case filed by five women plaintiffs in the court of Varanasi civil judge (senior division) Ravi Kumar Diwakar in August 2021 assumed significance after the court appointed an advocate commissioner for a court-mandated survey of Gyanvapi compound in April this year. Later, when the Allahabad high court turned down the AIM plea seeking to stop the court-mandated survey, the commission began its work on May 6 amid protests.
A sensation was created on the concluding day of the survey on May 16 when the plaintiffs and their lawyers claimed that a 'shivling' was found in the ablution pond of the mosque. The claim led to sealing of the ablution pond, a move which saw the local administration and police working hard to maintain peace and communal harmony during the Friday namaz.
A day after the survey report was submitted before the court on May 19, the AIM took shelter of the Supreme Court, which on May 20 transferred the civil suit from the court of civil judge (senior division) to the district judge.
Amidst these developments, an interesting situation arose when on May 31 veteran advocate Harishankar Jain and his son, who were contesting the case for plaintiffs 2 to 5 and Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh chief Jitendra Singh Visen, who was backing plaintiff number 1 Rakhi Singh, parted ways though they all remained part of the case.
Not only this, a judge and some persons related to this case also received threats. The police lodged a case after former civil judge (senior division) Varanasi, Ravi Kumar Diwakar, received a threat letter from 'Islamic Agaz Movement' in June. On August 17, Sohan Lal Arya, husband of a woman plaintiff, lodged an FIR claiming that he had received a 'sar tan se juda' (beheading) threat from an unidentified caller using a Pakistan number.