Petition filed on Atala Mosque to be heard later due to paucity of time on Monday

By

Rajesh Pandey

A petition filed by the management committee of Atala Mosque, Jaunpur challenging a local court’s order that directed the registration of a suit in which it was claimed that the mosque was originally an ancient Hindu temple (Atala Devi Temple) was not taken up by the court on Monday due to the paucity of time.

Earlier on November 8, the high court had directed the respondent Hindu side to file a reply within three weeks in response to a petition filed by the management committee of Atala Mosque, Jaunpur by which it had challenged a local court’s order that directed the registration of a suit in which it was claimed that the mosque was originally an ancient Hindu temple (Atala Devi Temple).

In the order dated November 8, the court had also directed the ‘Swaraj Vahini Association’ (SVA) and Santosh Kumar Mishra, who were plaintiffs in the suit before the court below to file their reply within three weeks and had directed the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit within a week.

The suit was filed by the Jaunpur court by the Swaraj Vahini Association and one Santosh Kumar Mishra seeking a declaration that the disputed property was ‘Atala Devi Mandir’ and followers of the Sanatan religion have the right of worship therein. They had also prayed for the possession of the disputed property and sought a mandatory injunction to restrain non-Hindus from entering the property in question.

Further, the plaintiffs had also sought permission to sue under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC in a representative capacity. This prayer was allowed in May this year by the impugned order, and the same was upheld by an order of the District Judge in August this year. Both the orders were challenged in the petition before the High Court.

The management committee of the Atala Masjid before the High Court had pleaded that the plaint was defective, as the plaintiff, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, was not a juristic person and, thus, was not competent to file the suit in a representative capacity. Further, the society’s byelaws do not authorize it to engage in litigation of this nature.