VARANASI : As the hearing of the Gyanvapi Masjid-Shringar Gauri case in Varanasi resumed on Monday in the district judge’s court, Anjuman Intezamia Masjido (AIM)- mosque management committee – Argued that the civil court did not have the right to hear the issue relating to the mosque as it was a waqf property and could only be heard by waqf board,
District Judge’s Court in Rakhi Singh vs State of UP and others case Ajay Krishna Vishwesh Hearing whether the case is maintainable or not. The hearing will continue on Tuesday as well.
As soon as the hearing began, AIM’s lawyer Shamim Ahmed challenged the arguments of the plaintiff women who were seeking the right to worship Shringar Gauri and other deities in the Gyanvapi mosque premises. He said that the Gyanvapi Masjid is the property of the Waqf, so the civil court has no right to hear the matter. “Only the Waqf Board can hear it,” he said.
Later, it was agreed in the court between the plaintiff and the defendant that the AIM would continue its defense on Tuesday as well. Thereafter, the plaintiff’s lawyers will respond to AIM’s counterclaims.
Earlier on August 18, during the hearing, the district judge’s court had imposed a fine of Rs 500 on AIM for delay in proceedings. In the wake of the untimely death of senior advocate Abhay Nath Yadav, representing the mosque committee, on August 4, AIM’s lawyers had sought time from the district judge’s court.
Mahendra Prasad Pandey, advocate (civil) for the district government, said that considering his petition, the court has fixed August 18 as the next date of hearing. The AIM filed an adjournment application on August 18, seeking 10 days to prepare.
According to DGC Civil, the district judge expressed displeasure over this and said that the hearing is being held in compliance with the order of the Supreme Court, which is getting delayed.
On the directions of the Supreme Court, District Judge Ajay Krishna Vishvesh started hearing the case from May 20. The AIM advocates, led by Yadav, argued for four days between May 24 and July 12. The woman plaintiff gave her counter reply by 21 July.
FacebookTwitterinstagramKu APPyoutube