A case related to Gyanvapi Masjid and Shringar Gauri case could not be heard today. Due to the Civil Judge Senior Division Fast Track Court Mahendra Kumar Pandey being on leave, the order could not be done even on Tuesday in the suit filed by Kiran Singh. Now the date of 14 November has been fixed for the order.
Whether this matter is maintainable or not, an order is to come on this issue. On October 15, the arguments of both the parties were completed in the court. October 27 was fixed for the order and both the parties were asked to file written arguments by October 18. In the episode, permission has been sought on behalf of Vadini Kiran Singh to ban the entry of Muslims in Gyanvapi, hand over the premises to Hindus and worship the Shivling.
In case Order 7 is to be ordered on the point of maintainability on Rule 11. It will be clear from the order of the court whether this suit is maintainable or not.
arguments in court Kiran Singh, wife of Jitendra Singh Visen, president of Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh, has filed this suit. In which the hearing of the petition filed for the demand of banning the entry of Muslims in the Gyanvapi complex, handing over the entire Gyanvapi complex to the Hindus and worshiping the alleged Shivling of Adi Vishweshwar Mahadev found there has been completed.
The counsel for the plaintiff Manbahadur Singh, Shivam Gaur and Anupam Dwivedi had said in the argument that the objection raised by Anjuman Prajatania on the issue whether the suit is maintainable or not is a matter of evidence and trial. Everything except the dome of Gyanvapi belongs to the temple. Only when the trial is done will it be known whether it is a mosque or a temple.
Referring to the judgment of Din Mohammad, it was said that there was no Hindu party in that case. It was also argued that the Special Place of Religion Bill 1991 is not effective in this case. The structure is not known whether it is a temple or a mosque. Only when the trial is held, it will be known whether there is a mosque or a temple, whose trial has the right to the civil court.
It was said that it is a historical fact that Aurangzeb had ordered the destruction of the temple and the construction of a mosque. The Waqf Act does not apply to the Hindu side. Therefore, this suit is maintainable and the application made by Anjuman on the point of maintainability is liable to be dismissed. Also, under Right to Property, the deity has a fundamental right to get his property. In such a situation, being a minor, this suit has been filed through a suit friend. The 6 ruling of the Supreme Court and the Constitution have also been cited in support of the suit in the court.
On the other hand, Mumtaz Ahmed, Tauheed Khan, Raees Ahmed, Mirajuddin Khan and Ekhlaq Khan, on behalf of the Muslim side i.e. Anjuman Inaztiya Masajid, raised the question in the reply in the court and said that on one side it is being said that the suit is filed on behalf of the deity. On the other hand, people related to the public are also involved in this debate.
On what this suit is based, no paper has been filed and there is no evidence. Court does not run by story, there is a difference between story and history. Whatever history is, that will be written. At the same time, by filing legal precedent, it was said that the suit is not maintainable and it should be dismissed.
Samajwadi Party President Akhilesh Yadav and AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi and many others have been accused of making provocative statements in the Gyanvapi episode. The order of the court can come today on the application filed to file a case against all the people in this case of hurting religious sentiments.
Expansion
A case related to Gyanvapi Masjid and Shringar Gauri case could not be heard today. Due to the Civil Judge Senior Division Fast Track Court Mahendra Kumar Pandey being on leave, the order could not be done even on Tuesday in the suit filed by Kiran Singh. Now the date of 14 November has been fixed for the order.
Whether this matter is maintainable or not, an order is to come on this issue. On October 15, the arguments of both the parties were completed in the court. October 27 was fixed for the order and both the parties were asked to file written arguments by October 18. In the case, permission has been sought on behalf of Vadini Kiran Singh to ban the entry of Muslims in Gyanvapi, hand over the premises to Hindus and worship the Shivling.
In case Order 7 is to be ordered on the point of maintainability on Rule 11. It will be clear from the order of the court whether this suit is maintainable or not.
arguments in court
Kiran Singh, wife of Jitendra Singh Visen, president of Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh, has filed this suit. In which the hearing of the petition filed for the demand of banning the entry of Muslims in the Gyanvapi complex, handing over the entire Gyanvapi complex to the Hindus and worshiping the alleged Shivling of Adi Vishweshwar Mahadev found there has been completed.
Ritika
