"In the national interest, it is required that the suit must proceed expeditiously and be decided with utmost urgency with the cooperation of both the contesting parties without resorting to any dilatory tactics," Justice Agarwal observed, while directing that the suit be decided within six months..—.ON Tuesday, the Allahabad High Court gave the green light to a 1991 suit pending in the Varanasi trial court..The suit seeks a declaration to the effect that a certain area of the Gyanvapi compound has been the temple of Swayambhu Lord Adi Vishweshwar since satyug..In Hindu chronology, satyug is the first era of a four-era complete cycle of time..Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed that the dispute raised in the suit was of vital national importance.."It is not a suit between the two individual parties. It affects two major communities of the country. Due to the interim Order operating since 1998, the suit could not proceed.."In the national interest, it is required that the suit must proceed expeditiously and be decided with utmost urgency with the cooperation of both the contesting parties without resorting to any dilatory tactics," Justice Agarwal observed, while directing that the suit be decided within six months..Justice Agarwal turned down the petitions filed by the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid against the Orders of the trial court passed on October 18, 1997 and September 23, 1998 and holding that the suit seeking determination of the religious character of the Gyanvapi mosque was not barred by the Places of Worship Act, 1991..On merits, Justice Agarwal held that the "religious character" of the Gyanvapi mosque could only be ascertained by the trial court after considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence led in support of the pleadings, adding that the Act of 1991 only bars conversion of places of worship but it does not define or lay down any procedure for determining the religious character of a place of worship that existed on August 15, 1947..Justice Agarwal held that either the Gyanvapi compound had a Hindu religious character or a Muslim religious character. It could not, he added, have a dual character..Justice Agarwal further added that the Places of Worship Act only barred conversion of the place of worship, but it did not define or lay down any procedure for determining the religious character of a place of worship that existed on August 15, 1947.."What will be the religious character of a disputed place can only be arrived at by a competent court after the evidence is led by the parties to the suit.."It is a disputed question of fact, as only part and partial relief has been claimed of the entire Gyanvapi compound which comprises settlement plot nos. 9,130, 9,131 and 9,132," Justice Agarwal observed..The Places of Worship Act, 1991 was enacted by the Parliament to prohibit the conversion of any place of worship and to preserve the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947..Pertinently, the 1991 Act exempted from the application of its provisions the Ram Janmabhoomi–Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya, and all suits, appeals or proceedings related to it..Justice Agarwal observed that religious character could not be confined within the limits of terminology, as the Act has not defined the term "religious character", it could only be decided by facts and circumstances of every case.."From the reading of the definitions provided under the Act, it is clear that the legislature had defined place of worship such as temple, mosque, gurudwara, church, monastery, etc. but not the religious character, maintaining distance between the two. It is the court who has to find out from the facts and circumstances of each case as to the religious character of the place of worship," Justice Agarwal held..Justice Agarwal further observed that merely asserting that a certain place is used as a place of worship by a certain section of persons would not 'declare' the religious character of that place..Justice Agarwal also noted that once the defendants did not claim the entire Gyanvapi compound and did not dispute the religious character and the place of worship of Swayambhu Adi Vishweshwar, the disputed structure standing on Plot no. 9,130 could not be said to have the religious character of a "mosque" at this stage..The plaintiffs have sought relief of declaration in respect of plot nos. 9,130, 9,131 and 9,132, claiming them to be the entire area of temple of Swayambhu Lord Adi Vishweshwar since satyug..The dispute is only to the part of the entire area, i.e., plot no. 9,130, which is claimed to be a part of the Gyanvapi compound and temple that was brought down by a farman (royal decree) of Emperor Aurangzeb in 1669..Click here to read the order.
"In the national interest, it is required that the suit must proceed expeditiously and be decided with utmost urgency with the cooperation of both the contesting parties without resorting to any dilatory tactics," Justice Agarwal observed, while directing that the suit be decided within six months..—.ON Tuesday, the Allahabad High Court gave the green light to a 1991 suit pending in the Varanasi trial court..The suit seeks a declaration to the effect that a certain area of the Gyanvapi compound has been the temple of Swayambhu Lord Adi Vishweshwar since satyug..In Hindu chronology, satyug is the first era of a four-era complete cycle of time..Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed that the dispute raised in the suit was of vital national importance.."It is not a suit between the two individual parties. It affects two major communities of the country. Due to the interim Order operating since 1998, the suit could not proceed.."In the national interest, it is required that the suit must proceed expeditiously and be decided with utmost urgency with the cooperation of both the contesting parties without resorting to any dilatory tactics," Justice Agarwal observed, while directing that the suit be decided within six months..Justice Agarwal turned down the petitions filed by the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid against the Orders of the trial court passed on October 18, 1997 and September 23, 1998 and holding that the suit seeking determination of the religious character of the Gyanvapi mosque was not barred by the Places of Worship Act, 1991..On merits, Justice Agarwal held that the "religious character" of the Gyanvapi mosque could only be ascertained by the trial court after considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence led in support of the pleadings, adding that the Act of 1991 only bars conversion of places of worship but it does not define or lay down any procedure for determining the religious character of a place of worship that existed on August 15, 1947..Justice Agarwal held that either the Gyanvapi compound had a Hindu religious character or a Muslim religious character. It could not, he added, have a dual character..Justice Agarwal further added that the Places of Worship Act only barred conversion of the place of worship, but it did not define or lay down any procedure for determining the religious character of a place of worship that existed on August 15, 1947.."What will be the religious character of a disputed place can only be arrived at by a competent court after the evidence is led by the parties to the suit.."It is a disputed question of fact, as only part and partial relief has been claimed of the entire Gyanvapi compound which comprises settlement plot nos. 9,130, 9,131 and 9,132," Justice Agarwal observed..The Places of Worship Act, 1991 was enacted by the Parliament to prohibit the conversion of any place of worship and to preserve the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947..Pertinently, the 1991 Act exempted from the application of its provisions the Ram Janmabhoomi–Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya, and all suits, appeals or proceedings related to it..Justice Agarwal observed that religious character could not be confined within the limits of terminology, as the Act has not defined the term "religious character", it could only be decided by facts and circumstances of every case.."From the reading of the definitions provided under the Act, it is clear that the legislature had defined place of worship such as temple, mosque, gurudwara, church, monastery, etc. but not the religious character, maintaining distance between the two. It is the court who has to find out from the facts and circumstances of each case as to the religious character of the place of worship," Justice Agarwal held..Justice Agarwal further observed that merely asserting that a certain place is used as a place of worship by a certain section of persons would not 'declare' the religious character of that place..Justice Agarwal also noted that once the defendants did not claim the entire Gyanvapi compound and did not dispute the religious character and the place of worship of Swayambhu Adi Vishweshwar, the disputed structure standing on Plot no. 9,130 could not be said to have the religious character of a "mosque" at this stage..The plaintiffs have sought relief of declaration in respect of plot nos. 9,130, 9,131 and 9,132, claiming them to be the entire area of temple of Swayambhu Lord Adi Vishweshwar since satyug..The dispute is only to the part of the entire area, i.e., plot no. 9,130, which is claimed to be a part of the Gyanvapi compound and temple that was brought down by a farman (royal decree) of Emperor Aurangzeb in 1669..Click here to read the order.
