The Supreme Court on Thursday said it will await the Varanasi District Judge’s decision on the Gyanvapi mosque committee’s application raising objections to the maintainability of the civil suit filed by Hindu devotees.
The SC also refused to entertain two writ petitions seeking permission to worship Shivling found in the Gyanvapi mosque premises during a court-ordered survey and carbon dating of the Shivling to ascertain its age.
A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and PS Narasimha said it is posting for October 20 hearing on the appeal of the Gyanvapi mosque committee’s plea against the HC order on the appointment of a court commissioner.
The bench said it has been apprised of the fact that proceedings before the District Judge are still underway and it would be appropriate if the appeal of the mosque committee is kept pending till the outcome of the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 questioning the maintainability of the suit.
“The court has been apprised of the fact that the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is being argued before the District Judge, Varanasi, and the proceedings on the application are pending. In the above situation, further hearing of these proceedings shall await the outcome of the proceedings before the District Judge. List the Special Leave Petition on October 20, 2022”, the bench said.
During the hearing, the bench told senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi appearing for the Committee of Management of Anujman Intezamia Masajid, Varanasi, that it will keep the proceedings on the appeal filed by it pending till the District Judge adjudicate upon the objections filed by the mosque committee on the maintainability of the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
Ahmadi accepted that there is a remedy under law but said the High Court order upholding the appointment of a court commissioner cannot be passed. “It is like a fruit from a poisonous tree. The order of commission survey was ex-facie beyond jurisdiction”, he said, adding, “If I can make out a case that the order appointing commission is illegal, then the report has to be struck off. In my case, there was no situation for ordering a commission report”. The senior counsel said that the court must see what the commission report has led to and the entire area of worship has been sealed.
Senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan objected to the submission of Ahmadi and said he is arguing on a civil suit and not a PIL and he should focus his arguments on the subject matter of the suit. Justice Surya Kant said the court can direct the trial court to not rely on the commission report while deciding their objections. Ahmadi said the order of the High Court upholding the appointment of a court commissioner should be set aside.
The bench then posted the matter for further hearing on October 20 and said it would await the outcome of the proceedings before the district judge on the application filed by the mosque committee challenging the maintainability of the civil suit filed by Hindu devotees.