Gyanvapi case: District court adjourns hearings in maintainability suit till July 4

Gyanvapi

In fresh developments in the Gyanvapi case that is being heard before the Varanasi district court, hearing in the matter pertaining to the maintainability of the suit against the Gyanvapi mosque under Order 7 Rule 11, has now been adjourned to July 4.

According to LiveLaw, Advocate Harishankar Jain appeared for the Hindu plaintiffs, while Advocate Abhay Nath Yadav appeared for the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid (AIM), which is the mosque management committee. Advocate Yadav asserted that the Gyanvapi mosque is Waqf property. He cited the Din Mohammed case of 1937 in which it was reportedly decided by the Court which area is the property of the mosque and which area is the property of the temple. The mosque committee, therefore, submitted, “Entire compound of the Gyanvapi Mosque belongs to the Muslim Waqf and Muslims have right to offer namaz in it.”

The AIM also objected to demands made by Hindu petitioners to offer prayers at the site of the “Shivling” that was allegedly discovered in the Wazu Khana (ablution tank) of the Gyanvapi mosque at the time of the video survey.

Meanwhile, three more parties – Lord Vishweshara (through next friend) Hindu Sena, Brahmin Sabha, and Nirmohi Akhara, have also approached the court seeking impleadment in the suit as plaintiffs. The case has now been adjourned to July 4. At the time of publishing this story the court was yet to pass an order about sharing the survey findings.

Meanwhile, drama unfolded parallelly in the fast-track court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mahendra Pandey, where a fresh petition was filed by one Kiran Singh seeking removal of the mosque. Here too, newspersons were barred from the courtroom and security around the court was beefed up. Another plaint was filed before this court seeking ad interim injunction against the AIM to prevent the mosque committee from causing hindrance to the entry of Hindu devotees and preventing them from offering prayers to the “Shivling” that the mosque committee insists is just a part of a defunct fountain. A group called the Kendriya Brahman Mahasabha filed an impleadment application seeking the right to offer prayers.

Advocates Shivam Gaur appeared for the Hindu plaintiffs, while advocates A Raees appeared for the AIM. This fast-track court now first needs to decide on the maintainability of Kiran Singh’s plaint. The court has for now adjourned the suit seeking ad interim relief to July 8. According to LiveLaw, the court noted that, “Since the Uttar Pradesh Government, Varanasi District Magistrate, Varanasi Police Commissioner and the AIM have not received a copy of the plaint copy, therefore, it won’t be justified to give any order without giving them the opportunity to get a copy of the plaint and argue on the same.” The court then directed them to filed their response/objections before July 8 which is the next date of hearing.