Varanasi: Concluding arguments in opposition to the bid of Anjuman Intezamia Masjid (administration committee) to problem maintainability of case 693/2021 for worshipping rights at Shringar Gauri within the courtroom of the district choose Ajay Krrishna Vishvesha, the plaintiff (1) Rakhi Singh specified the situation of Shringar Gauri in Gyanvapi mosque compound.
Her advocates Maan Bahadur Singh and Anupam Dwivedi submitted earlier than the courtroom that it’s not a case for fixing mandir-masjid dispute, however the plaintiffs are looking for worshipping rights, which is their constitutional in addition to civil proper.
Subsequent listening to within the case will happen on July 25.
Singh mentioned that within the concluding a part of the submission he talked about the precise location of Shringar Gauri in Gyanvapi compound. Clearing location of Shringar Gauri, the place worshipping continued until 1993, was a should because the courtroom will give its judgment on the premise of identical. Shringar Gauri is situated on the rear aspect of the temple constructing, he mentioned, including, “The AIM phrases this constructing as a mosque, however for us it’s an unlawful building. Even the parameters of Islamic legal guidelines won’t help AIM’s declare.”
Singh mentioned that the courtroom was knowledgeable that this case is just not for fixing the temple-mosque dispute, however solely to hunt the worshipping rights of plaintiffs. It isn’t solely their constitutional proper, but additionally the civil proper because of which this case is maintainable, he added.
Within the case 693/2021 filed by Rakhi Singh of Delhi and Laxmi Devi, Sita Sahu, Manju Vyas and Rekha Pathak of Varanasi in civil choose (senior division) courtroom on August 18, 2021, the AIM had taken shelter of the Supreme Courtroom. A number of developments, together with appointment of advocate commissioner, courtroom fee videography survey of the Gyanvapi mosque, unearthing of a construction claimed as shivling by plaintiffs within the ablution pond of Gyanvapi and its sealing, had taken place since then.
The SC on Might 20 transferred this case from the courtroom of civil choose to district choose Varanasi and requested for listening to on its maintainability beneath Order VII rule 11 of Civil Process Code. The district choose courtroom had began listening to the AIM’s argument difficult the maintainability of case from Might 24
AIM advocates concluded their submission on July 12. After it, advocates of plaintiffs two to 5 of the case Laxmi Devi, Sita Sahu, Manju Vyas and Rekha Pathak had given their submissions earlier than courtroom by July 15.
FbTwitterInstagramKOO APPYOUTUBE