• About
  • Contcat Us
Monday, May 29, 2023
Justice Bench
No Result
View All Result
  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums
No Result
View All Result
justice bench
No Result
View All Result
Home News

Supreme Court transfers Gyanvapi suit to District Judge from Civil Judge – know more

By Justuce Bench by By Justuce Bench
June 2, 2022
in News
Reading Time: 6 mins read
0
0
Supreme Court transfers Gyanvapi suit to District Judge from Civil Judge - know more

Supreme Court transfers Gyanvapi suit to District Judge from Civil Judge - know more

0
SHARES
7
VIEWS

The Court also said that its interim order of May 17 protecting Shivling and allowing Muslims to worship at the mosque, shall continue till the maintainability of the suit is decided.

On Friday the Supreme Court ordered the transfer of the civil suit in the Gyanvapi-Kashi Vishwanath dispute to the District Judge who should decide the maintainability. The suite in which Hindus and Muslims have staked claim to worship at the disputed Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi.

The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and PS Narasimha observed that an application by the Muslim party under Order VII Rule 11 (challenging the maintainability of the suit) is pending before the civil court.

READ ALSO

The Telangana High Court’s judgment restricting CBI’s questioning of YS Avinash Reddy is overturned by the Supreme Court.

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that any form of penetration, even if it is minimal, during forced anal sex is considered an offense under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

“Having regard to the sensitivity of this civil suit, this case before the civil judge Varanasi shall stand transferred and be heard by a senior and experienced judicial officer of UP Judicial services. Thus case transferred from Civil Judge (senior division), Varanasi to District Judge, Varanasi. The application filed by plaintiff under O7 R11 CPC shall be decided on priority by the District Judge on transfer of suit,”.

the Court ordered

Further, the Court also said that its interim order of May 17 shall continue till the Order VII Rule 11 application is decided.

“Our interim order dated May 17 shall continue to remain till Order 7 Rule 11 Application is decided and thereafter for 8 weeks so that parties aggrieved by district judge order can challenge the same,”.

The Court said

The apex court on May 17 ordered that the Shivling stated to have been found during the survey of the mosque be protected. The court also lifted the prohibition imposed by a Varanasi court on Muslims from entering the mosque premises.

In its orders passed today, the Court also directed the District Magistrate to make appropriate arrangements for Wazu (washing of feet and hands before offering prayers) at the mosque in consultation with parties.

The Court adjourned the matter and will be heard after the summer vacation.

The appellant the Committee of Management of Anjuman Intezamia Masajid had filed an appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court order permitting a civil court-appointed commissioner in Varanasi to inspect and conduct a survey and videography of the Gaynvapi Mosque over which Hindus and Muslims have laid claims for the right to worship.

On Friday the court heard the matter mentioned by Senior Counsel CS Vaidhyanathan, appearing for the Hindu parties submitted that the appeal has become infructuous since the court commissioner has already conducted the survey.

“Today the SLP is infructuous since all three orders have been complied with. Religious character of the mosque has to be decided. The commission report has to be seen by the court,”.

Vaidyanathan said

The bench suggested that the order VII Rule 11 application should be decided by the lower court.

The court further remarked that id suit is decided in favor of the Muslim party, the issue will come to an end.

“Order 7 Rule 11 application had to be decided first. That has not been done. So to decide whether order of commission was lacking jurisdiction we have to get into Order 7 Rule 11 application outcome. Thats why we thought the application can be decided and our interim order can continue,”.

The Court suggested

The bench also suggested that it will sent the matter to a District Judge so that an experienced hand deals with the issue.

“In this this sensitive matter, the suit should be heard by a District Judge. A slightly more seasoned and mature hand (should) hear this. No aspersion on trial judge. He is part of our system. This will benefit all the parties,”.

the bench remarked

Senior Counsel Huzefa Ahmadi appearing for the appellant (Muslim party) said that the top court should quash and set aside the Allahabad High Court since it was not in keeping with the Places of Worship Act, 1991.

He submitted that if the top court does not intervene, similar mischief will be raked up as regards other structures too.

“Till that application (Order VII Rule 11 application) is decided what will happen in the ground? You have to see how this case is being used for 4 or 5 mosques across the country. This will create public mischief which the Act wanted to avoid. taste of the pudding is in the eating. If today this is allowed, and tomorrow they say that another mosque was temple,”.

Ahamdi said

The court cannot suo motu decide on the maintainability of a suit, said the supreme court.

“The moment you say that framing of suit is barred under 1991 act then you are raking Order VII Rule 11 point. You are not arguing that application before the supreme court, but you say that commission was void ab initio. but the issue is to accept this argument, it is for us to comment on maintainability of the suit. Supreme Court cannot say suo motu it will decide maintainability of the suit. We have to follow due process of law,”.

the bench remarked

the court said it will keep pending the appeal before it till the Order VII Rule 11 application is decided.

“There is another way. You have challenged the appointment of commission. If you succeed under Order VII Rule 11, all comes to an end. If you fail in the application, we can post this SLP a little later after the vacation, so that in case you fail this appeal will be pending,”.

the Court suggested

The Court has remarked pertinently that ascertainment of the religious character of a place of worship is not barred under the Places of Worship Act.

“Ascertainment of religious character is not barred under Section 3 of the 1991 Act. Suppose there is a Parsi temple and there is a cross in the corner of the area. Does the presence of Agyari make the cross Agyari or Agyari christian. This hybrid character is not unknown,”.

 Justice Chandrachud remarked

“The religious character of the mosque as on August 15, 1947 is not in dispute,”.

Ahmadi contested

“It is strongly in dispute,”.

the lawyer for Hindu parties responded

“You may think so. If this is entertained, then the 1991 Act may be only a dead letter. This is the controversy the Act wanted to avoid,”.

Futher Contended Ahmadi

The Hindu parties filed suit claiming that the Gyanvapi Mosque houses Hindu deities and that Hindus should be allowed to worship and do puja at the site and the appeal arises from the same suit.

The Varanasi court had appointed a court commissioner to conduct a survey and videography of the site. This order was challenged before Allahabad High Court, which dismissed the appeal on April 21.

Subsequently, the present appeal was filed before the top court.

The advocate commissioner had meanwhile conducted the survey and submitted his report before the civil court.

Committee_of_Management_Anjuman_Intezama_Masajid_Varanasi_vs_Rakhi_Singh_and_ors_pdfDownload
Tags: case transfergyanvapisupreme court
ShareTweetSendShare

Related Posts

The Telangana High Court’s judgment restricting CBI’s questioning of YS Avinash Reddy is overturned by the Supreme Court.
News

The Telangana High Court’s judgment restricting CBI’s questioning of YS Avinash Reddy is overturned by the Supreme Court.

April 24, 2023
calcutta hc
News

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that any form of penetration, even if it is minimal, during forced anal sex is considered an offense under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

February 24, 2023
Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media
News

Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media

February 24, 2023
pocso act
News

SC – Touching a finger to a vagina does not constitute “insertion” for the purposes of attracting charges of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

February 23, 2023
The Gujarat High Court has rejected a request by the wife of Sanjiv Bhatt, stating that police protection is not a guaranteed right.
News

The Gujarat High Court has rejected a request by the wife of Sanjiv Bhatt, stating that police protection is not a guaranteed right.

February 13, 2023
Justice Hima Kohli stated that Artificial Intelligence cannot replace the role of a judge or a lawyer, but it can handle cases such as traffic violations and cheque bounces.
News

Justice Hima Kohli stated that Artificial Intelligence cannot replace the role of a judge or a lawyer, but it can handle cases such as traffic violations and cheque bounces.

February 13, 2023
google news
google news

POPULAR NEWS

Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna, and Bela M. Trivedi,

Execution of Document not to be considered based on Admission of Sign on Document Rules Supreme Court

May 12, 2022
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADVOCATE AND LAWYER

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A LAWYER?

June 4, 2022
La Milano Pizzeria restrained  from representing previous association with La Pino'z - know more

La Milano Pizzeria restrained  from representing previous association with La Pino’z – know more

May 20, 2022
Why does Sequoia Capital terminate connections with Sandeep Kapoors Algo Legal? threats of ED searches, arm-twisting, and more

Why does Sequoia Capital terminate connections with Sandeep Kapoors Algo Legal? threats of ED searches, arm-twisting, and more

June 6, 2022
jug jugg jeeyo

Copyright infringement | Jugjugg Jeeyo movie stay refused by Ranchi court

June 25, 2022

Tags

advocate Algo Legal Allahabad HC Allahabad High Court Anil Deshmukh anticipatory bail Appointment of Judges bail Bombay high court calcutta high court Central Bureau of Investigation central government cji Collegium Collegium Recommendations defamation delhi high court divorce Enforcement Directorate gauhati high court Gujarat High court Gyanvapi Mosque high court judges IPR Judicial Appointments justice bench karnataka high court kerala high court latest judgements law ministry legal news madras high court murder patna high court pil pocso act Rouse Avenue Court Sequoia Capital study material supreme court Supreme Court Collegium supreme court of india UAPA Union Law Ministry varanasi court

The Telangana High Court’s judgment restricting CBI’s questioning of YS Avinash Reddy is overturned by the Supreme Court.

by By Justuce Bench
April 24, 2023
0
The Telangana High Court’s judgment restricting CBI’s questioning of YS Avinash Reddy is overturned by the Supreme Court.
News

On Monday, the Supreme Court overturned a Telangana High Court ruling that had imposed limitations on the Central Bureau of...

Read more

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that any form of penetration, even if it is minimal, during forced anal sex is considered an offense under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

by By Justuce Bench
February 24, 2023
0
calcutta hc
News

The Calcutta High Court in India recently refused to quash a criminal case involving charges under Section 377 and allegations...

Read more

Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media

by By Justuce Bench
February 24, 2023
0
Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media
News

The Bengaluru court issued a temporary injunction against IPS officer D Roopa Moudgil and 59 media companies from broadcasting defamatory...

Read more

SC – Touching a finger to a vagina does not constitute “insertion” for the purposes of attracting charges of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

by By Justuce Bench
February 23, 2023
0
pocso act
News

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal against a Kerala High Court decision which had ruled that poking one's...

Read more

About

Justice Bench is one of the fastest growing news legal portal in India, for latest Latest Legal News india, Supreme Court judgement updates, High Courts Judgments updates,Law Firms News in india, Law School News, Latest Legal News india visit us.

Follow us

google news
google news

Recent Posts

  • The Telangana High Court’s judgment restricting CBI’s questioning of YS Avinash Reddy is overturned by the Supreme Court.

Popular News

  • Calcutta High Court asks CBI and NIA to investigate forced conversions in West Bengal Malda District - know more

    Calcutta High Court asks CBI and NIA to investigate forced conversions in West Bengal Malda District – know more

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0

© 2022 JusticeBench  |  Privacy Policy  | Terms of Use

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums

© 2022 JusticeBench  |  Privacy Policy  | Terms of Use

Welcome Back!

Sign In with Google
OR

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Sign Up with Google
OR

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In