Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(e) Decree the suit for mandatory injunction directing the Shri Kashi Vishwanath Trust Board to act in accordance with Section 13 (Thirteen) and 14 (Fourteen) of Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 (Nineteen Hundred Eighty-Three) and to make provisions for pooja and worship within cellar (Tehkhana) existing within settlement plot No.9130 (Ninety-One Hundred and Thirty) of Shri Adi Visheshwar Temple Complex (alleged Gyanvapi mosque);

(f) Grant such other relief for which the Plaintiff may be found entitled to or which may be deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice; and

11. Paragraph no. 21 of the plaint discloses the order passed by the District Magistrate, Varanasi in Case No. 65 dated 10.06.1925 relating to tehkhana (cellar) possessed by Baba Raghunath Vyas and also regarding tehkhana (cellar) within northern side of the subject building. Paragraph no. 26 of the plaint defines Section 4 (9) of Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act 1983 (hereinafter referred as the 'Temple Act of 1983'), which means Temple of Adi Vishweshwar popularly known as Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple, situated in the city of Varanasi which is used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to or for the benefit of or used as of right by the Hindus, as a place of public religious worship of the Jyotirlinga and includes all subordinate temples, shrines, subshrines and the ashthan of all other images and deities, mandaps, wells, tanks and other necessary structures and land appurtenant thereto.

25. According to learned Senior Counsel the provisions of Section 152 CPC cannot be invoked to modify, alter or add to the terms of original order or decree as to in fact pass an effective order after the order or judgment in a case. Liberal use of Section 152 CPC is beyond the scope of and has been deprecated by the Apex Court in case of Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho 2001 (4) SCC 181.

26. He then contended that appointment of District Magistrate, Varanasi, who being ex officio Member of Board of Trustees as per Section 6 (2) (i) of the Temple Act of 1983 creates clash of interest in between the office of District Magistrate, Varanasi, who hold overall control over the city being executive head as well as in-charge of revenue district. He also contended that executive committee is constituted under Section 19 (1) of the Temple Act of 1983 which is to work subject to direction of Board or the State Government and is responsible for the superintendence, direction and control of the affairs of the temple. Section 19 (2) provides for the Members of the Executive Committee and the District Magistrate, Varanasi is a Member of the Executive Committee.

52. Lastly, it was contended that there was no conflict in the function of District Magistrate, while performing the duty as Receiver as per the orders of the Court, being an Ex-officio Member of Board of Trustees under the Temple Act, 1983. As the Receiver, the Court had directed the District Magistrate to arrange for worship of deities present inside the tehkhana (cellar), at issue, through a priest nominated by the Board of Trustees. The functions to be performed by the Receiver, the District Magistrate are consisting with the duties of the Board of Trustees under Section 13 and 14 of the Temple Act, 1983. Thus, in reality, the there is no conflict between the two. In any event, no malice in law or malice, in fact, can be, or has been imputed to the District Magistrate in the present case.