Varanasi, May 26 Hearing in Gyanvapi case started in the district court about the maintainability of the original plaint that whether the plaint filed by the Hindu side could be heard or not on Thursday.
Abhay Nath Yadav, Counsel of the Intezamia Committee, argued that in the light of Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act 1991, the plaint cannot be heard. The Counsel of the Muslim side could not complete his argument, after which the court fixed May 30 as the next date of hearing.During hearing, the Counsel of the plaintiffs, who filed the plaint seeking permission for regular worship at Shringar Gauri Sthal, opposed the arguments of Muslim side. He said that there were enough grounds for the hearing of the plaint and argued on this point.
Arguments were made in the court of District and Sessions Court Ajay Krishna Vishvesha by the Counsels of both the sides for two hours on whether the hearing can be done on the plaint in the light of the Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act 1991 or not.
Yadav, Counsel of the Muslim side, said that the Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act does not permit hearing in the case, therefore, hearing on the plaint seeking permission for worship at Shringar Gauri Sthal and other places cannot be heard.
On a Special Leave Petition, the Supreme Court has directed the District Judge Varanasi to hear the case on maintainability on priority basis.
The apex court said the District Judge should examine the maintainability of suit on priority as sought by the Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Varanasi. The Intezamia Committee has sought direction that the plaint should not be heard under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure.
As per the apex court order, the District Judge decided to first hold hearing on the maintainability of the plaint filed seeking permission for worship at Shringar Gauri Sthal located in the complex. Besides, he also gave one week time to all the parties to file their objections on the videography-survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque complex.
During the hearing, Special Advocate Commissioner Vishal Singh, who was appointed for the videography-survey, also appeared before the court and presented the report of the second phase of the survey. He also presented the report of the first survey, which was prepared by the then Advocate Commissioner Ajay Kumar Mishra.
The Counsel of Intezamia Committee said the fact that a Shivling was found in the complex, was misleading and it was actually a foundation. He said an attempt was being made to incite the sentiments of people by talking about Shivling in the Mosque.
