DHANANJAY Vs. JUMMA MASJID MALALIPETE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petition is filed by the plaintiffs assailing the order dtd. 6/6/2022 passed by the learned Judge on a memo filed by the present petitioners insisting to hear the application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 and 10(A) of CPC wherein the learned Judge vide impugned order has deferred the hearing of application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 and 10(A) of CPC pending consideration of an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC.

(2.) The petitioners/plaintiffs have instituted a suit for injunction simplicitor seeking prohibitory injunction against the respondent/defendant from dismantling the old tiled cum historical monument situated in the plaint schedule property. In the present suit, the controversy revolves around alleged existence of temple in the precincts of Masjid and that respondent/defendant has commenced the demolition of Masjid with an intention of constructing a new structure in the same place. The petitioners/plaintiffs contend that below the disputed Masjid, there exists a very old temple. While carrying out demolition by respondent/defendant, the existence of temple is now visible and therefore, under the garb of construction of Masjid, it is alleged that respondent/defendant is intending to demolish the old temple. Therefore, the present suit is filed.

(3.) On receipt of summons, the respondent/defendant tendered appearance and has filed application under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC by contending that the suit is barred under Sec. 4(1) and (2) of the Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act, 1991. Therefore, the respondent/defendant contend that the present suit is barred under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC and hence, sought for rejection of plaint.