Hearing concludes. Next hearing on May 30
Arguments under Place of Worship Act 1991 is underway. Previous precedents of Supreme Court have been cited regarding this 1991 Act by Muslim Party. There is no right of the parties (plaintiff) to claim the title of the mosque, Muslim side argue.
Lawyer for the Hindu side, Vishnu Shankar Jain informed the District Judge that the alleged Shivling found inside Gyanvapi Mosquehas been damaged with a "Chakri". Jain to inform court once the Muslim side concludes submission.
Muslim side raises concern that the existence of shivling is only alleged and not yet proven. "Rumours are resulting in a public disturbance which should not be allowed until existence is proven," says party.
The letter seeking permission for Legal Reporters to listen to the hearing is to be placed before the District Judge.
Hearing underway in Varanasi court
The Masjid committee argues: This suit by the Hindu party is utterly non-maintainable and should be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC
Another plea challenging Places of Worship Act 1991 filed in SC
Media access barred and Gyanvapi Mosque hearing today
Today, the Muslim side will present its arguments that this lawsuit is barred by the Places of Worship Act: VS Jain the Gyanvapi mosque case
Varanasi court transfers new petition seeking ban on Muslims' entry in Gyanvapi Mosque to fast track court
A Varanasi district court on Wednesday transferred a new petition, filed by a saffron outfit seeking a ban on the entry of the Muslims in the Gyanvapi Mosque and handing over the entire premises to the Hindus, to a fast track court for further hearing.
A district court here on Wednesday transferred a petition seeking permission to worship a "Shivling" claimed to have been found in the Gyanvapi complex during a videography survey to a fast-track court for hearing on May 30.
Gynavapi mosque case: Muslim side cite 1937 suit to show mosque, courtyard property of waqf
Speaking to IANS Mohammed Tauhid Khan, representing the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee, said, "The suit is barred by law and not maintainable..."
Khan cited the 1937 suit filed by one Deen Mohammed, where it was settled that the mosque, courtyard, and the land on which the mosque exists is a property of waqf. He emphasised that issues which have been settled should not be raised again. The masjid management has claimed that the civil suit seeking unrestricted access for daily worship of Goddess Shringar Gauri and other deities on the premises violates Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991. However, the Hindu parties had contended that the survey report should be considered.
A Varanasi court will hear the maintainability of the civil suit on May 26,and will hear objections of the Muslim side in the Gyanvapi mosque-Kashi Viswanath temple dispute.
The court will hear the Order 7 Rule 11 application by the Muslim side which seeks to reject the civil suit of the Hindu side.
The Judge has asked for objections to the Court Commissioners survey report from both the sides. The district court has also given seven days' time to both the sides to file objections to the report of the court-mandated videography of the complex.