HC reserves verdict on plea challenging maintainability of Hindu petitioners

Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court on Friday reserved its judgment on a civil revision petition filed by Anjuman Intezamia Masajid (AIM) that has challenged a Varanasi court order turning down its objections to the maintainability of the suit filed by five Hindu women seeking permission to regularly worship Shringar Gauri and other deities in Varanasi’s Gyanvapi mosque compound.
Justice JJ Munir passed this order after hearing the counsel of rival sides at length.
On Friday, 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.
According to him, the claim has been made only to avoid the application of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which bars filing of a suit for conversion of any religious place as existed on August 15, 1947.
According to Naqvi, the present suit is barred by the Act of 1991, Limitation Act and Waqf Act.
Pointing out that even if the claim of Hindu side is accepted, why they did not file suit in 1993 when they were so restrained or thereafter, Naqvi said the suit filed before the Varanasi court is barred under the Limitation Act, which bars filing of suit for declaration after three years of incident.
Earlier, at one stage the counsels representing the Hindu side had taken the plea that old map shows the existence of Hindu deities on Gyanvapi mosque and the Hindu devotees were regularly worshipping Shringar Gauri and other deities on the outer wall of Gyanvapi for long and it was only in 1993 that the then government restrained regular worship and they are permitted to worship only once in a month. Hence, the Act of 1991 is not applicable to them.
Further, they claim that the place in dispute is not a waqf property.
The Varanasi district judge had on September 12 this year dismissed the plea of AIM filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), challenging the maintainability of the suit filed by the five Hindu plaintiffs.
While rejecting the AIM’s plea, the district judge had observed that the suit of the plaintiffs (five Hindu women) is not barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the Waqf Act 1995, and the UP Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983, as was being claimed by the AIM.
The AIM filed the present civil revision petition before the high court, challenging the September 12 order on the ground that the suit before the court below is barred under the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which provides that no suit can be filed seeking conversion of any religious place as existed on August 15, 1947.
The Places of Worship Act, 1991, bars change in the character of religious places after Independence, even by means of court proceedings.