HC dismisses petition against appointment of advocate commissioner

PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad high court on Thursday dismissed a petition filed by the Anjuman Intazamia Masjid, Varanasi, challenging the order of the civil court (Varanasi) dated April 8,2022 appointing an advocate commissioner to inspect a disputed site in the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi mosque complex in Varanasi.

The petitioner had also challenged the order dated 18.08.2021 by which the court had restrained from interfering in worship of deities in Kashi Vishwanath temple in Varanasi.

The Thursday’s order was passed by Justice JJ Munir of the Allahabad high court after hearing counsel for petitioner SFA Naqvi and chief standing counsel Bipin Bihari Pandey along with MC Chaturvedi, additional advocate general, state government.

By the order dated April 8,2022, the civil court had appointed Ajay Kumar Mishra, advocate, as the court commissioner to inspect the spot and submit its report in this regard and also for videography of the spot. On the question of appointment of advocate commissioner, the high court observed, “The appointment of commission does not, in any way, impinge upon the rights of the defendant petitioner. If anything is said in the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner that the defendant-petitioner or any other defendant to the suit feels is contrary to the spot position, he can always object to the Commissioner’s report, which would then be a subject matter for decision by the court on the basis of evidence on record.”

“The other objection canvassed by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the defendant-petitioner, that a particular Advocate Commissioner cannot be chosen by the plaintiff, is also not well-founded. A perusal of the impugned order dated 08.04.2022 shows that the learned Trial Judge has taken note of the fact that the two Advocate Commissioners, earlier appointed from the list, had not discharged the commission. It is on that basis that the Trial Judge has remarked that the issue involved is serious, which the Advocate Commissioners are reluctant to enter upon. It is in view of the said facts that the court has chosen to nominate in its discretion Mr. Ajay Kumar, advocate to discharge the commission,” the high court added.

After going through the entire records and arguments, the court said, “Apart from whatever has been said, the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to a supervisory role and can certainly not be the resort to correct every erroneous order.” The HC said, “In the entirety of circumstances obtaining, this court does not find it to be a case worth interference with any of the orders impugned. This petition fails and is summarily dismissed.”