The Allahabad High Court on Thursday dismissed the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid’s plea challenging a Varanasi court’s order to appoint an advocate as a court commissioner to inspect the Kashi Vishwanath Mandir-Gyanvapi Masjid complex.
It also dismissed the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid’s plea against the civil court’s another order by which it restrained interference in the worship of deities at the Visheswar Nath Mahadev Mandir in Varanasi. Justice J J Munir dismissed the plea after hearing the counsel for petitioner S F A Naqvi, chief standing counsel Bipin Bihari Pandey and Additional Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh M C Chaturvedi.
The High Court observed, ”The commissioner does not, in any way, impinge upon the rights of the defendant-petitioner.” ”If anything is said in the report of the learned advocate commissioner that the defendant-petitioner or any other defendant to the suit feels is contrary to the spot position, he can always object to the Commissioner’s report, which would then be a subject matter for decision by the Court on the basis of evidence on record,” it said. The civil court in Varanasi had, by an order, appointed Ajay Kumar Mishra, an advocate, as court commissioner to inspect the spot, videograph it and submit its report to the court.
In another order, it had also directed restrained interference in the worship of deities at the Visheswar Nath Mahadev Mandir.
HC quashes defamation case against media house; says publisher not expected to check truthfulness of FIR for news
In 'New India' will only 'friends' be heard and not the country's heroes: Rahul Gandhi criticizing Agnipath
The High Court said, ”The other objection canvassed by the senior advocate appearing for the defendant-petitioner, that a particular advocate commissioner cannot be chosen by the plaintiff, is also not well-founded.” A perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial judge has taken note of the fact that the two advocate commissioners earlier appointed from the list had not discharged the commission, it stated.
”It is on that basis that the trial judge has remarked that the issue involved is serious, which the advocate commissioners are reluctant to enter upon.
”It is in view of the said facts that the court has chosen to nominate in its discretion Ajay Kumar, advocate, to discharge the commission.” the High Court added.
After going through entire records and arguments, it said, ”Apart from whatever has been said, the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to a supervisory role and can certainly not be the resort to correct every erroneous order.” It dismissed the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid’s petition by observing, ”In the entirety of circumstances obtaining, this court does not find it to be a case worth interference with any of the orders impugned.’