JUDGMENT :

(Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.)

1. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 04.11.2022, Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi was directed for expressing opinion on the point whether scientific investigation of the 'structure' found at the site -subject matter of original suit no.18 of 2022, can be done through the method of carbon dating, ground penetrating radar (GPR), excavation and other scientific methods to be adopted to determine its age, nature and other relevant information without causing damage to it?

2. In that regard, the report has been submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India – Sri Shashi Prakash Singh assisted by learned counsel Sri Manoj Kumar Singh.

3. Noticeable that the aforesaid report was produced in a sealed envelope by the Additional Solicitor General of India for perusal of the Court on 11.05.2023 whereupon the sealed envelope was opened in Court and copy of the report was sought to be made available to the counsel for the revisionists as well as the contesting respondents whereupon the copy was supplied to them so that the parties may come to know about the substance and contents of the report submitted by the Archaeological Survey of India, Sarnath Circle, Sarnath, Varanasi. At this juncture this was considered appropriate to give at least one day time to both the sides to peruse the copy of the report and to state their respective stand so that the matter may be finally considered for disposal and the proceeding of this case was adjourned for the next following day i.e. 12.05.2023.

4. This Court carefully perused the original report which has been submitted to this Court by the covering letter of the Superintending Archaeologist, ASI, Sarnath Circle, Sarnath, Varanasi, dated 17.04.2023, thus communicating to this Court about the report which runs in as many as 52 pages and the learned Additional Solicitor General of India explained the various contents and aspects of this report - as submitted.

5. The learned Additional Solicitor General described the report by summing up that the opinion of the Archaeological Survey of India is based upon views/opinions of various renowned IITs (Indian Institutes of Technology) located in various regions of India, also about the scientific analysis of various methods and approach likely to be adopted for carrying out survey of the structure in question on the site.

6. Heard Sri Hari Shanker Jain, learned Senior Advocate, through virtual-mode, assisted by Sri Vishnu Shanker Jain, Sri Prabhash Pandey, Sri Pradeep Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the revisionists through hybrid mode, Sri Shashi Prakash Singh, Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate appearing for Archaeological Survey of India, Sri Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel, Sri Ramanjay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Sri Ankit Gaur, Sri Shravan Kumar Dubey, Sri Gyanedra Singh, Sri Hare Ram Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1,2 and 3. Sri Syed Farman Ahmad Naqvi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Syed Ahmed Faizan, learned counsel for the respondent no.4, Sri. Vineet Sankalp, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. No one appears on behalf of the respondent no.6 in spite of repeated calls, also perused the record as available.

7. By way of the instant revision, challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the trial Judge/District Judge, Varanasi, in Original Suit No.18 of 2022 Rakhi Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, whereby the application numbered 250 C moved by the plaintiff-revisionist and objection 255 C and 262 C were considered and the application aforesaid was dismissed by observation that the prayer made for scientific investigation of the structure (in the shape of Shivlingam) cannot be ordered as that would be in violation of the or