CS SCJ 875/2020 TIRTHANKARA AND ORS. VS UOI IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA SHARMA, CIVIL JUDGE-01 (SOUTH) SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI Civil Suit No :- 875/2020 CNR No :- DLST03-001127-2020 (1) TIRTHANKARA LORD RISHAB DEV Principles Jain Deity, Temple Complex now known as Qutub Complex area, Mehrauli District-South-West Delhi-110030, Through Next Friend Hari Shankar Jain, O2-503, Oxirich Apartment, Niho Scottish Garden, Ahinsha Khand-2, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh-201014 (2) LORD VISHNU, PRINCIPAL DEITY, Temple Complex now known as Qutub Complex area, Mehrauli District-South-West Delhi-110030, Through Next Friend Ranjana Agnihotri, Advocate D/o Late Rajendra Kant Agnihotri, R/o 512/695, Badla Road, Nishantganj. Near Nishantganj Police Chowki, Lucknow, New Hyderabad, Uttar Pradesh-226007 3. HARI SHANKAR JAIN, ADVOCATE S/o Late Nem Chandra Jain R/o O2-503, Oxirich Apartment, Niho Scottish Garden, Ahinsha Khand-2, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh-201014 4. RANJANA AGNIHOTRI, ADVOCATE D/o Late Rajendra Kant Agnihotri, R/o 512/695, Badla Road, Nishantganj. Near Nishantganj Police Chowki, Lucknow, (Neha Sharma) Page of 1 of 16 CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
16
Embed
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA SHARMA, CIVIL JUDGE01 (SOUTH ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
CS SCJ 875/2020TIRTHANKARA AND ORS. VS UOI
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA SHARMA, CIVIL JUDGE01 (SOUTH)
SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No : 875/2020
CNR No : DLST030011272020
(1) TIRTHANKARA LORD RISHAB DEVPrinciples Jain Deity,Temple Complex now known as Qutub Complex area,Mehrauli DistrictSouthWest Delhi110030,Through Next Friend Hari Shankar Jain,O2503, Oxirich Apartment, Niho Scottish Garden,Ahinsha Khand2, Indirapuram,Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh201014
(2) LORD VISHNU, PRINCIPAL DEITY,Temple Complex now known as Qutub Complex area,Mehrauli DistrictSouthWest Delhi110030,Through Next FriendRanjana Agnihotri, AdvocateD/o Late Rajendra Kant Agnihotri,R/o 512/695, Badla Road, Nishantganj.Near Nishantganj Police Chowki, Lucknow,New Hyderabad, Uttar Pradesh226007
3. HARI SHANKAR JAIN, ADVOCATES/o Late Nem Chandra JainR/o O2503, Oxirich Apartment, Niho Scottish Garden,Ahinsha Khand2, Indirapuram,Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh201014
1. UNION OF INDIAThrough the Secretary Ministry of CultureGovernment of IndiaCWing, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi, Delhi110015,Email Id:office[email protected]
2. DIRECTOR GENERALArchaeological Survey of India,Dharohar Bhawan, 24 Tilak Marg,New Delhi110001Email Id:[email protected]
3. SUPERINTENDING ARCHAELOGICAL DELHI CIRCLE,Archeological Survey of India,Puratatva Bhawan, General Pool Office Complex,DBlock, 3rd Floor, INA New Delhi110023Email Id: [email protected] .........DEFENDANTS
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PERMANENT AND MANDATORY
INJUNCTION
(Neha Sharma) Page of 2 of 16 CJ01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 875/2020TIRTHANKARA AND ORS. VS UOI
1. This order shall decide the maintainability of the present suit.
2. The present suit has been filed for relief of declaration, permanent
and mandatory injunction against the defendants.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that the subject matter of the present suit
is a huge temple complex known as Quwwat Ul Islam which was declared as a
protected monument in exercise of the powers under Section 3 of Ancient
Monuments Preservations Act 1904 vide notification no. DL, 387 EDU dated
16.01.1914.
4. It is averred in the plaint that Delhi was ruled by celebrated Hindu
Kings upto 1192 when Mohammed Gauri invaded and defeated King Prithiviraj
Chauhan in the battle in 1192 AD. Thereafter, Qutubdin Aibak a commander of
Mohammed Gauri dismantled/ destroyed Shree Vishnu Hari temple and 27 Jain
and Hindu temples along with constellations with respective deities and raised
some inner constructions within the temple complex. The temple complex was
renamed as ‘QuwwatUl Islam Mosque’, in Arabic language which means
‘Might of Islam’.
5. The Qutubdin Aibak failed to completely demolish the existing
temples and only partial demolition was carried out and after reusing the
material of the temple construction was erected and the mosque was built. On
the walls, pillars and roof of the existing building the images of Gods and
Goddess including other religious/ pious Hindu symbols and deities like Shri
Ganesh, Vishnu, Yaksha, Yakshini, Dwarpal, Lord Parshvanath, Lord Mahavir,
Natraj and symbols like Mangal Kalash, Shankh (Conch), Gada, Lotus Motifs,
Shri Yantra, Temple Bells and Sacred Lotus etc are still present.
6. In view of the fact that the pictures of Hindu God and Goddess,
Jain Tirthakars and also Hindu/ Jain temple architectural design which are(Neha Sharma)
Page of 3 of 16 CJ01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 875/2020TIRTHANKARA AND ORS. VS UOI
clearly visible on pillars, walls, roof, bracket, staircase and several other places,
the Mosque was abandoned and never used. Naturally, the only purpose was to
demoralize Hindu and Jain devotees and subjects residing there to feel that that
that they had been crushed by the Islamic forces. That Hindu and Jain devotees
regularly visit the temple place occupied by alleged mosque and pay homage to
deities and destroyed idols which is a matter of national shame.
7. That after the judgment in Ayodhya case delivered on 9th
November, 2019 the plaintiffs alongwith several other devotees visited Qutub
Minar two three times and lastly on 23 December 2019, purchased book from
the Book sale counter available at entrance gate. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have
studied a number of historical books, literary works and available materials
regarding the history of Qutub Complex.
8. That from the wellestablished historical fact it is clear that a
number of temples with deities were existing within the temple complex before
the construction of the alleged QuwwatulIslam Mosque and nature of Hindu
religious property continued and the Muslims never declared the place as Waqf
property before or after the construction was raised under the command of
Qutubdin Aibak and therefore, the construction could not be used as Mosque at
any point of time.
9. It is submitted that our constitution is transformative in nature and
we, the citizens of India are not supposed to carry on the shameful and black
spot of history on our head in the change of the circumstances with the change
of the sovereign of the State. Plaintiffs have averred that Central Government is
the owner and ASI has administrative control over the property in question.
Hence, through this present suit relief for restoration of deities within the temple
complex and also for issuance of direction to Central Government to frame
(Neha Sharma) Page of 4 of 16 CJ01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 875/2020TIRTHANKARA AND ORS. VS UOI
scheme of administration and create a trust to manage Puja, Worship,
Maintenance of Property in accordance with the provisions contained in
sections 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological
Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “AMASR Act”) has
been sought.
10. Heard the parties. Perused the record. Considered.
11. The law with regard to Order VII Rule 11 CPC is well settled.
While dealing with an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule
11 CPC, the court has to consider only the averments made in the plaint and not
the defence of the defendant or the contents of the application under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC.
12. In T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held;
“5. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful –
not formal – reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and
meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he
should exercise his power under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. taking
care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if
clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it
in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly
under Order 10, C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to
irresponsible law suits. The trial courts would insist imperatively
on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation
can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also
resourceful enough to meet such men, (Chapter XI) and must be
triggered against them.”
(Neha Sharma) Page of 5 of 16 CJ01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 875/2020TIRTHANKARA AND ORS. VS UOI
13. It is clear that if the allegations are vexatious and meritless and not
disclosing a clear right or material to sue, it is the duty of the trial Judge to
exercise his power under Order 7 Rule 11. If clever drafting has created the
illusion of a cause of action as observed by Krishna Iyer J., in the above referred
decision, it should be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the
parties under Order 10 of the Code.
14. In C. Natrajan v. Ashim Bai (2007) 14 SCC 183, the Apex Court
has observed:
“8. An application for rejection of the plaint can be
filed if the allegations made in the plaint even if given
face value and taken to be correct in their entirety
appear to be barred by any law. The question as to
whether a suit is barred by limitation or not would,
therefore, depend upon the facts and circumstances of
each case. For the said purpose, only the averments
made in the plaint are relevant. At this stage, the court
would not be entitled to consider the case of the
defence.”
15. Further, in Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 1 SCC
557 it was held with reference to Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code that the relevant
facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the
averments in the plaint. The court observed that:
“The trial court can exercise the power at any stage
of the suit even before registering the plaint or after
issuing summons to the defendant at any time before
the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of(Neha Sharma)
Page of 6 of 16 CJ01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi