Hearing of Gyanvapi-Shringar Gauri case now on 18, the court gave a new date on the appeal of the Muslim side

The hearing on Thursday was adjourned till August 18 on whether the suit filed for regular darshan of Maa Shringar Gauri at Gyanvapi, Varanasi is maintainable or not. Before the hearing on Thursday, the Muslim side, Anjuman Inazaniya Masajid Committee, submitted an application in the court and demanded time. By giving an application in the court of District Judge Dr. Ajay Krishna Vishwesh, he informed about the death of Chief Advocate of the case Abhaynath Yadav. Also sought 15 days time for the reason of death. On this, the court fixed August 18 for hearing. In Thursday's hearing, the Muslim side, Anjuman Inazaniya, was to argue a counter-argument.

On the orders of the Supreme Court, the court of District Judge Dr. Ajay Krishna Vishwesh has heard on several dates since May 23 on the maintainability of the suit under Order 7 Rule 11. In the case, the Hindu side claims that Shringar Gauri's case is maintainable. At the same time, the Muslim side claims that the case is not maintainable.

First of all, on the application of Order 7 Rule 11, the Muslim side Anjuman Inazaniya Masajid Committee presented arguments for days. Apart from this, DGC Civil Mahendra Prasad Pandey Prasad represented on behalf of DM, Police Commissioner and Chief Secretary of the state. He said that all the orders issued earlier by the court have been complied with. In future also, the government and administration are committed to complying with the orders of the court where the Muslim side has been proving in its arguments that the Special Religious Places of Worship Act 1991 is applicable in the Gyanvapi complex and being a Waqf property, this Court has no right to hear.

On the other hand, the Hindu side continued to argue that the Special Places of Worship Act 1991 does not apply here because before 1993 there was worship. After the enactment of Vishwanath Temple Act, the entire property of Araji No. 9130 got absorbed in the deity and there is no evidence of Waqf Board registration. Gyanvapi's property is in the city, while the registration mentions Manduadih in the countryside.