Mangaluru: The High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the proceedings of the Mangaluru Civil Court, which is hearing the validity of the original suit related to the Malali Mosque dispute.
A bench headed by Justice Sachin Shankar Magadam on Friday July 15 dismissed the petitions filed by T. A. Dhananjaya of Tenka Ulepady Village in Mangaluru and B. A. Manoj Kumar of Badaga Ulipadi Village.
He also heard arguments on the validity of the original suit filed in connection with the case. The interim order passed by the Third Additional Civil Court in Mangaluru on June 13, asking it not to pass any order, has been dismissed.
Dhananjay and Kumar had filed a suit in the Civil Court seeking a stay on the demolition of the temple like structure, which was allegedly found during the renovation work of Malali Masjid. The court had issued a restraining order to vacate the structure, meanwhile, the management of the mosque filed an interim application and said that the disputed site is a Waqf property.
The people had argued that the trial of the original suit under the Public Place of Worship Act was not valid. On the other hand, the original litigants filed an interim application and sought that a commissioner be appointed first and a site inspection should be conducted.
However, the Civil Court had earlier rushed to the spot and took up the matter for hearing so that the petitioners approached the High Court.
A plea to appoint a commissioner to court to conduct a site inspection should be considered before deciding the validity of the trial of the original suit. Only if the site inspection is done and the information is scientifically obtained, the history and archaeological antiquity of the building will be determined. When it comes to original suit and site inspection, it is not specifically stipulated in the law that the original suit application should be recognised.
The petitioner argued that the scientific report will give an answer to this. He also said that these conditions were not considered in Gyanvapi mosque case by the trial court.
Commissioner’s report is not required before the jurisdiction of the trial court is decided to hear the original suit. If the Commissioner is appointed first and the report is received after the suit’s validity has been reviewed, the appointment of the Commissioner is invalid, and neither his report nor the suit will be valid if there is an adverse judgement. “Therefore, the validity of the original suit has to be decided first,” the counsel for the mosque’s management had argued.
