New Delhi,May 21,2022: Not satisfied with the proceedings of the Gyanvapi mosque case in a Varanasi court, the Supreme Court on Friday transferred the adjudication of the suit filed by the five-Hindu women plaintiffs from a Varanasi civil judge to a district judge. The apex court ordered the district judge to decide on priority the application by the committee of management of Anjuman e-Intezamia Masjid Varanasi challenging the maintainability of the suit under Order 7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The mosque committee is contending that the suit is in the teeth of the Places of Worship Act 1991 and therefore barred.
Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC provides that the plaint shall be rejected “where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.”
Relieving the Varanasi civil judge from adjudicating the suit, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, heading a bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, said that in view of the complexity of the matter, a “senior and experienced” judicial officer of the Uttar Pradesh higher judicial service should examine the case.
“A slightly more seasoned and mature hand should hear this case. We are not making an assertion on the trial judge. But a more seasoned hand should deal with this case and it will benefit all the parties,” the court said in the course of the hearing.
Entrusting the case to Varanasi district judge, the top court said that the May 16 ex-parte order passed by the civil judge sealing the area where “shivling” is found and restricting the entry of Muslims for offering prayers is subsumed in its (the top court’s) May 17 order.
The top court said that its May 17 order to protect the shivling in the Gyanvapi Masjid without in anyway impeding the entry of Muslims in the mosque for offering prayers will remain in force till Varanasi district judge decides on the challenge to suit by the five-Hindu women plaintiff under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. The court added that its May 17 will continue for another eight weeks after the decision, as either of the aggrieved parties may pursue legal remedies.
