Gnanawapi Campus Survey Case: Hearing will be held again on 26th May

[ad_1]

Prayagraj, May 24 (Hindustan Times). The Allahabad High Court will again hear on May 26 on several issues of pleas filed regarding the Varanasi court’s order to have the Gnanavapi complex surveyed by the Archaeological Survey of India and the validity of the civil suit.

After concluding the arguments of both the parties, the court reserved the decision and extended the stay on the order of the Varanasi court to conduct the survey till the verdict. While writing the judgement, the court has ordered a rehearing to clarify some points of the parties’ lawyers.

Justice Prakash Padia, who was hearing the petitions of Sunni Central Waqf Board and Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee, gave this order. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the civil suit was 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 party said that Lord Vishweshwar himself is the earth god. It is given by nature. Not made by man. He said on this issue. Siddique Vs. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahant Suresh Das and others. He said that the idol itself is natural. Therefore Section-4 of the Place of Worship Act will not apply in this case. It was held that the application of Order 7 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code would be decided on the facts of the suit. It has been written in the civil suit that the Bhu Vishweshwar Nath temple itself belongs to Satyuga. Before and after 15th August 1947 the worship continues uninterrupted.

The petitioner’s claim that no Bhubhagavan himself was in Satyuga, can only be determined by evidence. It was also contended that the petitioner’s revision petition against the order of the Varanasi Court has been dismissed. The Court did not find the objection maintainable. The application under Section-227 is not maintainable against this order. The application should be dismissed.

After a lengthy discussion on both sides, the court reserved decision on all the pending applications. There will be a rehearing to clarify some issues.