COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ANJUMAN INTEZAMIA MASAJID, VARANASI versus RAKHI SINGH AND OTHERS
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 108, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Issues
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 108 : 2023 INSC 702
108
CASE DETAILS
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ANJUMAN INTEZAMIA 
MASAJID, VARANASI
v.
RAKHI SINGH AND OTHERS
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.31345 of 2023)
AUGUST 04, 2023 
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI, 
J. B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue under consideration : Order of the High Court dismissing 
the appeal against an order of the District Judge directing an archeological 
survey of the area in which the Gyanvapi Mosque is situated.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Application u/s.75(c) and Or.26, 
r.10A of CPC allowed by the District Judge, directing ASI to undertake 
a scientiﬁ c survey of the property – High Court aﬃ  rmed the said order 
subject to certain observations made and aﬃ  davit ﬁ led by the ASI – 
Propriety of:
Held : The High Court had clariﬁ ed that while it was aﬃ  rming 
the order dated 21.07.2023 of the District Judge, it was subject to the 
observations of the High Court and the contents of the aﬃ  davit which was 
ﬁ led on behalf of ASI – Before the High Court, ASI had clariﬁ ed on aﬃ  davit 
that it was neither carrying out any excavation nor would the survey involve 
any destruction of the property – It was apparent from the directions of the 
District Judge that there would be excavation at the site – However, the 
High Court had circumscribed the nature of the order passed by the District 
Judge – High Court permitted the proposed survey since the Department 
of Archeology had expressly
stated that no damage would be caused to the 
property in question – Thus, the direction of the High Court is reiterated that 
there shall be no excavation at the site or any destruction of the structure – In 
addition, it is directed that the entire process to be conducted by any non-
invasive methodology that may be adopted by the ASI. [Paras 9, 16 and 17]
109
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ANJUMAN INTEZAMIA MASAJID, 
VARANASI v. RAKHI SINGH 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XXVI, r.10A – Exercise of 
discretion by the District Judge:
Held : The District Judge while acting as a trial Judge in the suit 
exercised discretion under Order XXVI Rule 10A to direct a scientiﬁ c 
investigation by the ASI – The order of the Trial Judge under Order XXVI 
Rule 10A cannot prima facie be construed to be without jurisdiction – 
The High Court also had found no reason to interfere – However, certain 
safeguards were introduced by the High Court. [Para 15]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
M Siddiq (Dead) Through Legal Representatives vs Mahant 
Suresh Das and Others (2020) 1 SCC 1 : [2019] 18 SCR 1; Committee of 
Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid, Varanasi vs Rakhi Singh and 
Others SLP (C) No 11351 of 2023; Mohd Aslam Alias Bhure vs Union of 
India and Others (1994) 2 SCC 48 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave 
Petition (Civil) Diary No.31345 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.08.2023 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in MUA227 No.7955 of 2023.
Appearances:
Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv., Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Nizam Pasha, Ms. 
Rashmi Singh, Ibad Mushtaq, Ms. Akanksha Rai, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Tushar Mehta, SG, Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, AAG, Mrs. Madhavi 
Divan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Ruchira Goel, Siddharth Thakur, Shantanu Singh,
Ravi Sehgal, Adit Jayeshbhai Shah, Sharanya Sinha, Ms. Keerti Jaya, 
Barun Kumar Sinha, Anantha Narayana M.G., Mrs. Pratibha Sinha, Rakesh 
Mudgal, Mrs. Beby Devi Bonia, Tarun Gulia, Prabhsimar Singh, Hari 
Shankar Jain, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Parth Yadav, Ms. Mani Munjal, Advs. 
for the Respondents.
110
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
JUDGMENT/ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI
1. The proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution have been 
initiated to challenge an order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 
dated 3 August 2023. The High Court dismissed the appeal against an order 
of the District Judge directing an archeological survey of the area in which 
the Gyanvapi Mosque [Settlement Plot No. 9130] is situated. 
2. The respondent-plaintiﬀ s ﬁ led a suit (Civil Suit No. 18 of 2022) 
seeking a declaration that they were entitled to perform rituals of deities 
which are allegedly present within the premises of the Gyanvapi mosque. 
The respondents also ﬁ led an application under Section 75 and Order XXVI 
Rules 9 and 10 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code 19081
for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for inspection of the 
premises. The petitioner-defendant moved an application under Order 7 Rule 
11(d) of the CPC for the dismissal of the suit on the ground that it is barred 
by the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act 1991. 
3. The application seeking the appointment of the Advocate 
Commissioner was allowed by the Civil Judge. The appeal against the order 
of the Civil Judge was dismissed by the High Court by an order dated 21 April 
2022. The petitioners instituted proceedings (SLP No. 9388 of 2022) under 
Article 136 challenging the order of the High Court. In the
meanwhile, the 
Advocate Commissioner submitted a report recording that a Shivaling was 
found in the premises of the mosque. By an order dated 16 May 2022, the 
Civil Judge directed the place where the Shivaling was allegedly found be 
sealed. This Court by an order dated 17 May 2022 directed the order of the 
Civil Judge dated 16 May 2022 shall not restrain the access of Muslims to 
the mosque or the use of the mosque for the purpose of performing Namaz. 
By another order dated 20 May 2022, this Court directed that the application 
ﬁ led by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC be decided on priority. 
4. The District Judge dismissed the application of the petitioner under 
Order VII Rule 11. The appeal against the order dismissing the application 
1 
“CPC”
111
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ANJUMAN INTEZAMIA MASAJID, 
VARANASI v. RAKHI SINGH [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI] 
was dismissed by the High Court by an order dated 31 May 2023. The 
Special Leave Petition challenging the order of the High Court dismissing 
the Order 7 Rule 11 application of the petitioner is pending before this Court. 
5. Meanwhile, the respondents ﬁ led application nos. 327C and 333C 
under Section 75(c) and Order 26 Rule 10A of the CPC seeking a direction 
to the Director of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to undertake a 
scientiﬁ c survey of Settlement Plot No 9130 for the purpose of ascertaining 
the nature of the construction and the age of the structure. The District Judge 
allowed the applications and directed the ASI to “undertake the scientiﬁ c 
investigation/survey/excavation on the property bearing Settlement Plot No 
9130”, excluding certain areas which were sealed by the orders of this Court 
dated 17 May 2022, 20 May 2022 and 11 November 2022. The District Judge 
while allowing the applications issued the following directions:
“ (a)  The Director of ASI is directed to undertake the scientiﬁ c 
investigation/survey/excavation at the property in question i.e. 
at Settlement Plot No.9110 in the case excluding the areas scaled 
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.05.2022, 
20.05.2022 as well as vide order dated 11.11.2022 in SLP(C) 
No.9388/2022 tilled as Committee of Management Anjuman 
lntejamia Masajid Varanasi vs. Rakhi
Singh & Ors.;
(b)  
The Director of ASI is also directed to conduct a detailed 
scientiﬁ c investigation by using GPR Survey, Excavation, 
Dating method and other modem techniques of the present 
structure to ﬁ nd out as to whether same has been constructed 
over a pre-existing structure of Hindu temple;
(c) 
The Director of ASI is also directed to conduct scientiﬁ c 
investigation in the light of the averment made in this 
application after associating the Plaintiﬀ s, Defendants and their 
respective counsels and submit report to this Hon’ble Court 
upto 04-08-2023 and also to photograph and video-graph the 
entire survey proceedings;
(d)  
The Director of ASI is also directed to investigate the age and 
nature of construction of the western wall of the building in 
question through scientiﬁ c method(s);
112
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
(e) 
The Director of ASl is also directed to conduct Ground 
Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey just below the 3 domes of the 
building in question and conduct excavation, if required;
(f) 
The Director of ASl is also directed to conduct Ground 
Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey beneath the western wall of 
the building and conduct excavation, if required;
(g)  
The Director or ASI is also directed to conduct Ground 
Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey beneath the ground of all the 
cellars and conduct excavation, if required;
(h)  
The Director of ASI is also directed to prepare a list of all 
the artefacts which are found in the building specifying 
their contents and carry out scientiﬁ c investigation and 
undertake dating exercise to ﬁ nd out the age and nature of 
such artefacts;
(i) 
The Director of ASI is also directed to conduct dating exercise 
of the pillars and plinth of the building to ﬁ nd out the age and 
the nature of construction;
(j) 
The Director of ASI is also directed lo conduct GPR survey, 
excavation wherever required, dating exercise and other other 
scientific methods for determining the age and nature of 
construction existing at the site in question;
(k) 
The Director of ASl is also directed to investigate the artefacts 
and other objects of historical and religious importance existing 
in diﬀ erent parts of the building and also beneath the structure 
which may be found during such exercise;
The Director of ASI is also directed to ensure that there should 
be no damage to the structure standing on the disputed land and 
it remains intact and unharmed. Report will be submitted up to 
04-08-2023. Put up on 04-08-2023 for further proceedings.”
6. The order of the District Judge was assailed before the High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in proceedings under Article 227 of 
the Constitution. By a judgment dated 3 August 2023, the order of the 
District Judge was affirmed subject to (i) the observations made by
113
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ANJUMAN INTEZAMIA MASAJID, 
VARANASI v. RAKHI SINGH [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI] 
the High Court in the text of its judgment; and (ii) the contents of the 
affidavit which was filed by the ASI before the High Court.
7. During the course of the hearing before the High Court, the ASI 
was called upon to assist the Court. In pursuance of the direction of the High 
Court, the Additional Director General, ASI ﬁ led an aﬃ  davit setting out the 
nature of the proposed survey that would be carried out. Paragraphs 13 to 
20 of the aﬃ  davit ﬁ led by the ASI are extracted below for convenience of 
reference:
“13 That it is also submitted that the GPR survey would be conducted 
by the renowned experts of the technical institutions such as IIT, 
Kanpur.
14 That it is further submitted that the survey team will study the 
pillars and architectural members, detail study of western wall, 
survey of complex and structure, study of open place/ﬂ oor, GPR 
survey and photo documentations etc.
15 That it is pertinent to mention here that Scientiﬁ c Archeological 
Studies do not damage or remove the structure rather they are 
preserved and wherever any structure is exposed that area is left 
untouched.
16 That it is further submitted that while Scientiﬁ c Archeological 
Studies would be carried out beyond the structures and in open 
areas only.
17 That it is further submitted that no drilling, no cutting, no removal 
of brick or stone from the existing
structure will be done while 
conducting the survey and study.
18 That it is further submitted that archeological sites will be in 
open place ﬂ oor area which will not aﬀ ect the structure at all.
19 That it is further submitted that no wall/structure would be 
damaged and the entire survey will be conducted by the non 
destructive method by using techniques such as GPR survey, GPS 
survey, the other scientiﬁ c methods and other modern techniques.
20 That it is further submitted that the ASI is premier organization 
to conduct archeological investigations in the country, and
114
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
undertakes that entire survey will be conducted in accordance 
with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Courts without using 
any destructive method and damage to the structure.  In case 
any further investigation/excavation is required permission of 
Hon’ble Court would not be sought.”
8. Apart from the aﬃ  davit, the deponent Shri Alok Tripathi, who is the 
Additional Director General of the ASI, appeared before the court in-person. 
The submissions which were made by the Additional Director General have 
been recorded in the following extract of the judgment of the High Court:
“...he submitted that the ASI will conduct a detail survey in accordance 
with law and prepare a list of the antiquities which are found in 
building and carry out detail survey and undertake the exercise to ﬁ nd 
age and nature of the structure. He further submitted that the ASI will 
conduct survey, documentation, photography, detail description, GPR 
survey and full studies without harming the existing structures. He 
also submitted that all the aforesaid works would be carried without 
any damage to the structures. He has submitted that the scientiﬁ c 
investigation would be carried out beyond the structure and in open 
areas only: no drilling, no cutting, no removal of brick or stones from 
the existing structure will be done while conducting the survey and 
study. It has been further submitted that archaeological sites will be 
in open place ﬂ oor
area which will not aﬀ ect the structure at all and 
no wall/structure would be damaged and the entire survey will be 
conducted by the non-destructive method by using techniques such 
as GPR survey. GPS survey the other scientiﬁ c methods and other 
modem techniques. It has also been submitted that in case any further 
investigation/excavation is required, permission of the Hon’ble Court 
would be sought.”
9. The High Court held that the order of the District Judge directing a 
survey falls within the ambit of Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Code of Civil 
Procedure 1908. The High Court rejected the submission of the petitioners 
that Order XXVI Rule 10A cannot be used by the parties to gather evidence 
in their favour. The Court observed that where a question arising in a suit 
involves a scientiﬁ c investigation which cannot, in the opinion of the court, 
be conveniently conducted before the court, it may, if it thinks necessary or
115
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ANJUMAN INTEZAMIA MASAJID, 
VARANASI v. RAKHI SINGH [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI] 
expedient in the interest of justice so to do, issue a commission for that purpose. 
In paragraph 21 of its judgment, the High Court has dealt with the apprehension 
that the survey would envisage an act of excavation or destruction of the 
structure existing at the site. The High Court has recorded the statement of the 
Additional Director General, ASI as well as of the Additional Solicitor General 
who was appearing for the Union of India, that no excavation whatsoever will 
take place. The High Court observed that since the Department of Archeology 
and counsel representing the Department had expressly stated that no damage 
would be caused to the property in question, the survey which is proposed, 
may be permitted to be carried out. In the concluding paragraph of its order, 
the High Court clariﬁ ed that while it was aﬃ  rming the order dated 21 July 
2023 of the District Judge, this was subject to the observations of the High 
Court and the contents of the aﬃ  davit which was ﬁ led on behalf of ASI. 
10. Before we deal with the submissions which have been urged on 
behalf of the petitioners by Mr Huzefa A Ahmadi, senior counsel, it needs to be 
clariﬁ ed at the outset that it has been clariﬁ ed on behalf of ASI by Mr Tushar 
Mehta, Solicitor General that the entire survey which is envisaged to be carried 
out in pursuance of the order of the District
Judge would be completed without 
any excavation at the site and without causing any damage to the structure. 
11. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted by Mr Huzefa A 
Ahmadi, senior counsel that this Court ought to interfere with the order of 
the High Court because: 
(i)  The carrying out of a survey is contrary to the provisions of the 
Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, the genesis of 
which has been explained in the judgment of the Constitution 
Bench in M Siddiq (Dead) Through Legal Representatives vs 
Mahant Suresh Das and Others2 [Ram Janmabhumi Temple 
Case];
(ii)  In the suit of 1991, pursuant to a similar plea, a survey by the ASI 
was ordered which has been stayed by the High Court by an order 
dated 9 September 2021; 
(iii)  A similar issue pertaining to an order for carbon dating of a 
structure which is claimed to be a ‘Shivaling’ by the plaintiﬀ s 
2 
(2020) 1 SCC 1

116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
and a ‘fountain’ by the defendants is pending in Committee 
of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid, Varanasi vs 
Rakhi Singh and Others3. In the course of the proceedings 
before this Court, the order for survey was stayed, on the 
Solicitor General joining in the submission that the process 
of carbon dating may partake of an invasive nature; 
(iv)  An order of status quo in respect of the property was passed 
in the judgment of this Court in Mohd Aslam Alias Bhure 
vs Union of India and Others4 because of a threat to the 
property; and 
(v)  While an order for conducting a scientiﬁ c investigation or 
survey under Order XXVI Rule 9 may be passed at any stage, 
ordinarily a scientiﬁ c survey ought not to be ordered until the 
court is cognizant of the issues that would arise in the suit. 
12. On the other hand, Ms Madhavi Divan, senior counsel appearing 
on behalf of the original plaintiﬀ s in the suit submitted that:
(i)  An order under Order XXVI is essentially for the beneﬁ t of the 
court which requires such a survey to be conducted to assist it 
in deciding the substance of the controversy in a suit;
 (ii)  The order of the trial Judge ordering a survey is neither 
adversarial nor prejudicial since it is not determinative of the 
substance of the rights of the parties; 
(iii)  All parties would be entitled to ﬁ le their objections to the report 
of the ASI and to seek cross-examination should the survey be 
intended to be let into substantive evidence; 
(iv)  The
issue in terms of the provisions of Section 4(1) of the 
Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 is as regards 
the religious character of the place. The frame of the plaint 
would indicate that the contention of the plaintiﬀ s is that both 
before and after 1947, the religious character of the place is 
indicative by acts of continuing worship; 
3 
SLP (C) No. 11351 of 2023
4 
(1994) 2 SCC 48
117
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ANJUMAN INTEZAMIA MASAJID, 
VARANASI v. RAKHI SINGH [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI] 
(v) The function of the ASI is to preserve and protect monuments 
of historical importance and hence there is no basis for any 
apprehension that damage would be caused to the structure; and 
(vi)  The circumstances pertaining to the earlier suit of 1991 are 
distinct inasmuch as in that case the suit was on title in which 
an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was allowed by 
the Trial Judge. The order of the Trial Judge was set aside in 
First Appeal against which proceedings under Article 227 were 
instituted by the original defendants before the High Court. In 
those proceedings, there was a stay of the proceedings in the suit. 
In this backdrop, when the Trial judge allowed an application 
for a survey by the ASI, the order was stayed by the High Court 
during the pendency of the proceedings.
13. Order XXVI Rule 10A stipulates that where any issue in a suit 
involves any scientiﬁ c investigation which cannot in the opinion of the 
Court be conveniently conducted before the court, the court may, if it 
thinks necessary or expedient in the interest of justice so to do, issue a 
commission to such person as it thinks ﬁ t directing them to inquire into 
such question and report thereon to the court. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 
10A, the provisions of Rule 10 of the order shall, as far as may be, apply 
in relation to a Commissioner appointed under the
rule as they apply to 
a Commissioner appointed under Rule 9. Rules 9 and 10 of Order XXVI 
therefore assume relevance and are extracted below:
“9. Commissions to make local investigations.—In any suit in which the 
Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose 
of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market-value 
of any property, or the amount of any mesne proﬁ ts or damages or annual 
net proﬁ ts, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks ﬁ t 
directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court:
Provided that, where the State Government has made rules as to the 
persons to whom such commission shall be issued, the Court shall be 
bound by such rules.
10. Procedure of Commissioner.—(1) The Commissioner, after such 
local inspection as he deems necessary and after reducing to writing the
118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
evidence taken by him, shall return such evidence, together with his 
report in writing signed by him, to the Court.
(2) Report and depositions to be evidence in suit.—The report of the 
Commissioner and the evidence taken by him (but not the evidence 
without the report) shall be evidence in the suit and shall form part of 
the record; but the Court or, with the permission of the Court, any of 
the parties to the suit may examine the Commissioner personally in 
open Court touching any of the matters referred to him or mentioned 
in his report, or as to his report, or as to the manner in which he has 
made the investigation.
(3) Commissioner may be examined in person.—Where the Court is 
for any reason dissatisﬁ ed with the proceedings of the Commissioner, 
it may direct such further inquiry to be made as it shall think ﬁ t.
10-A. Commission for scientiﬁ c investigation.—(1) Where any 
question arising in a suit involves any scientiﬁ c investigation which 
cannot, in the opinion of the Court, be conveniently conducted before 
the Court the Court may, if it thinks it necessary or expedient in the 
interests of justice so to do, issue a commission to such person as 
it thinks ﬁ t, directing him to inquire into such question and report 
thereon to the Court.
(2) The provisions of Rule 10 of this Order shall, as far as may be, 
apply in relation to a Commissioner appointed under this rule as they 
apply in relation to a Commissioner
appointed under Rule 9.”
14. In terms of Order XXVI Rule 10, the Commissioner has to submit 
a report in writing to the court. The report of the Commissioner and the 
evidence taken by him constitute evidence in the suit and form a part of the 
record. However, the court and, with its permission, any of the parties may 
examine the Commissioner personally in open court touching any of the 
matters referred to him or mentioned in the report or as regards the report 
including the manner in which the investigation has been made. The court 
is also empowered to direct such further inquiry if it is dissatisﬁ ed with the 
proceedings of the Commissioner. The evidentiary value of any report of the 
Commissioner is a matter to be tested in the suit and is open to objections 
including cross-examination. A report of the Commissioner does not by and
119
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ANJUMAN INTEZAMIA MASAJID, 
VARANASI v. RAKHI SINGH [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI] 
of itself amount to a substantive ﬁ nding on matters in dispute and is subject 
to the process of the court during the course of the trial.
15. At this stage, the court must notice that the District Judge while 
acting as a trial Judge in the suit exercised discretion under Order XXVI Rule 
10A to direct a scientiﬁ c investigation by the ASI.  The order of the learned 
Trial Judge under Order XXVI Rule 10A cannot prima facie be construed 
to be without jurisdiction. The High Court has found no reason to interfere, 
having set out the legal position which constrains the nature of the challenge 
under Article 227 of the Constitution while dealing with an interlocutory 
order of this nature. At the same time, the High Court has introduced certain 
safeguards which need to be reiterated in the course of the present judgment 
of this Court. 
16. Having regard to the nature and ambit of a court appointed 
Commissioner, we are unable to diﬀ er with the view of the High Court, 
particularly while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the 
Constitution. The High Court has introduced certain speciﬁ c directions to 
circumscribe the nature of the order which was passed by the District Judge. 
Reading the directions which have been issued by the District Judge, it is 
apparent that they would be amenable to the carrying out of an excavation at 
the site.
However, during the course of the proceedings before the High Court, 
ASI has clariﬁ ed on aﬃ  davit that it was neither carrying out any excavation 
nor would the survey involve any destruction of the property. 
17. We reiterate the direction of the High Court that there shall be no 
excavation at the site which was in accordance with the statement which was 
made before the High Court by the Additional Solicitor General and which has 
been reiterated in the submissions made by the Solicitor General on behalf of 
the ASI. We have recorded the submission of the Solicitor General in the earlier 
part of this order to the eﬀ ect that the survey shall not involve any excavation 
at the site or any destruction of the structure. In terms of the statement and 
the directions of the High Court, we direct that the entire process shall be 
concluded by any non-invasive methodology that may be adopted by the ASI. 
18. The report which would be prepared by the ASI shall in terms of the 
provisions of Order 26 shall be remitted to the Trial court and shall thereafter 
abide by the directions which would be passed by the District Judge at the 
trial of the suit.

120
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
19. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly disposed of.
20. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 
Headnotes prepared by:

SLP disposed of. 
Ankit Gyan