As per the date fixed, the hearing of the case was resumed on Tuesday. However, after a brief hearing, Justice JJ Munir directed to put up this case on November 30 for further hearing.
District judge Varanasi had on September 12 dismissed the plea of AIM — the Gyanvapi mosque management committee — filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC), challenging the maintainability of the suit filed by the five Hindu plaintiffs.
While rejecting the AIM plea, district judge Varanasi 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 present revision petition has been filed by AIM 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 character of religious places after independence, even by means of court proceedings.