Prayagraj, 26 May (Hindustan Times). The Allahabad High Court could not hear the petitions filed on Friday regarding the Varanasi court’s order to get the Gyanvapi complex surveyed by the Archaeological Survey of India and the validity of the civil suit. The court will now hear the matter on July 14.
This order was given by Justice Prakash Padia while hearing a petition filed by UP Sunni Central Waqf Board and Anjumne Intezamia Masjid Varanasi. Before this the case was presented before the court and the debate started. The debate was stopped due to paucity of time.
In the case, the court had completed the hearing on November 28, 2022 itself and secured the verdict. But on some points, a re-hearing was ordered for clarification from the counsel for the parties. The court had held the hearing on July 24 but fixed May 26 for arguments on that day.
It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the civil suit is not maintainable under Section 4 of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. It is settled law that an order passed and no other legal remedy is available can be challenged in a petition under Article 227.
The opposition temple side said that Lord Vishweshwar himself is the earth god. It is given by nature. Not man made. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in M. Siddique vs. Mahant Suresh Das and others on this issue. He said that the idol itself is natural. Therefore section 4 of the Places of Worship Act will not be applicable in this case. It was said that the application of Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure would be decided only on the facts of the suit. It is written in the civil suit that the Bhu Vishweshwar Nath temple itself is from Satyug. Before and after 15 August 1947 worship is being done continuously uninterruptedly.
The claim of the petitioner is that there was no land lord himself in Satyuga. This can only be determined by evidence. It was also argued that the revision petition of the petitioner against the order of the Varanasi court has been dismissed. The court did not consider the objection to be maintainable.
