Summary
The Court permitted the ASI scientific survey of the Gyanvapi premises subject to strictly non-invasive methods, without excavation or damage to the structure. A commissioner’s report assists the trial court but does not itself decide disputed rights; its evidentiary value remains open to objections and examination. The order did not determine the pending challenge to maintainability of the underlying suit.
Issues
- Whether the scientific-survey order warranted interference at this interlocutory stage.
- What safeguards governed the survey and the resulting report.
Provisions considered
- Order XXVI Rules 9, 10 and 10A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Scientific investigation could be commissioned in the interests of justice where it could not conveniently occur before the court. The report remained subject to trial scrutiny and permitted examination. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
- Articles 227 and 136, Constitution of IndiaThe Court declined interference with the interlocutory exercise of trial-court discretion as restricted by the High Court’s safeguards. (¶¶ 6, 15, 16)
Held
- Order XXVI Rule 10A empowered the trial court to commission the scientific investigation; the order was not prima facie without jurisdiction. The High Court’s refusal to interfere, with safeguards restricting how the survey could occur, did not warrant intervention under Article 136. (¶¶ 13, 15, 16)
- Although the District Judge’s original directions contemplated excavation, the ASI’s assurances and the High Court’s restrictions governed the permitted exercise. The entire survey had to use non-invasive methods, with no excavation and no destruction of the structure. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17)
- The commissioner’s report and accompanying evidence form part of the suit record, but do not themselves resolve the matters in dispute. Objections, court-permitted examination and further inquiry remain available. The ASI was to submit its report to the trial court for directions in the suit. (¶¶ 13, 14, 18)
- The separate special-leave challenge concerning rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 remained pending. This judgment addressed the scientific-survey order and its safeguards. (¶¶ 4, 5, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
Result
Special leave petition disposed of, permitting the ASI survey only through non-invasive methods without excavation or structural damage. Report to go to the trial court; pending applications disposed of.