Gyanvapi Row: Court to decide on hearing of Shringar Gauri case tomorrow

In the Gyanvapi case, the petition of the Muslim side will be heard first. Varanasi Court has given this decision after hearing. Now the matter will be heard in Varanasi district court on May 26. Order 7/11 will be heard on May 26. In this, the court will decide whether the Shringar Gauri case is worth hearing or not. Along with this, the court has sought objection from both the parties on the survey in a week.

The judge gave a new date after hearing both the sides. Let us tell you whether the Special Places of Worship Act 1991 is applicable in this case or not. On May 26, the application 35C of the Muslim side will be heard whether it is maintainable or not.

Vishnu Shankar Jain, counsel for the Hindu side on the Gyanvapi Masjid case, said that the hearing on the petition of the Muslim side under 7/11 CPC regarding the rejection of the trial will be held on May 26. The court has asked both the parties to file an objection to the commission’s report and submit the report within a week. The lawyer for the plaintiff said that our demand was fulfilled. Videography copy will be given to both the parties.

Earlier, the hearing of the Supreme Court’s order in the Gyanvapi campus dispute was held in Varanasi’s district judge’s court on Monday. Both the sides put forth their demands but the court, while not giving any decision, adjourned the hearing till today.

Primarily, the court of the District Judge will decide whether to first hear the suit for the maintainability of the petition or to hear the objections in the Shringar Gauri case first. On Monday, both sides kept their points in the court of District Judge Dr. Ajay Krishna Vishwes for about 45 minutes.

Anjuman Intejamiya said that first in compliance with the order of the Supreme Court, it should be decided whether the case of Rakhi Singh Vs State of UP is maintainable or not. Said that after the filing of the suit, the maintainability was challenged, but the lower court, ignoring it, ordered the survey commission.

Now the first decision has to be taken whether the Special Places of Worship Act 1991 is applicable or not. Advocate Vishnu Jain, appearing for the plaintiff, said that the videos and photos of the commission proceedings are evidence related to this case. First their copy should be given, then after objection from both the sides, it should be decided whether the suit is maintainable or not.

He said that the Special Place of Worship Act does not apply here. DGC Civil Mahendra Prasad Pandey also said that worship is being done before and after 1991 also. In this case, the Special Place of Worship Act does not apply. Earlier, there was a ban on the entry of anyone other than the plaintiff-defendant’s parties and their advocates in the court room. Due to which only 23 people went to court.