Prayagraj: Opposing the Varanasi District Judge‘s Jan 31st order allowing permission for puja in southern cellar of Gyanvapi mosque, Anjuman Intezamia Mosque Committee, which manages Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, on Monday submitted before the Allahabad High Court the reasons why the order was not proper.
Since the order was passed without ascertaining the rights of the plaintiff in the disputed property, the permission for puja is illegal, argued senior counsel SFA Naqvi before a bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, who adjourned hearing to Feb 15.
He further contended that no cogent reasons for allowing Puja/Raga Bhoga inside the tehkhana were specified in the order. Naqvi also contended that the district judge passed the order on an application which was already disposed of on Jan 17. Counsel Puneet Kumar Gupta, also appearing for the Mosque committee, submitted that it was an admitted fact that since 1993 there has been no puja in tehkhana and hence, if after 30 years, the court was appointing a receiver and changing the status quo, there should have been some cogent reason behind it. He also submitted that the Hindu plaintiff was never in possession of the Vyas Tehkhana.
The counsels for Hindu side, Hari Shankar Jain and Vishnu Shankar Jain, said that the district judge allowed prayers inside Vyas Tehkhana by invoking powers under section 152 of civil procedure code. Advocate General Ajay Kumar Misra was present on behalf of the state government.
Since the order was passed without ascertaining the rights of the plaintiff in the disputed property, the permission for puja is illegal, argued senior counsel SFA Naqvi before a bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, who adjourned hearing to Feb 15.
He further contended that no cogent reasons for allowing Puja/Raga Bhoga inside the tehkhana were specified in the order. Naqvi also contended that the district judge passed the order on an application which was already disposed of on Jan 17. Counsel Puneet Kumar Gupta, also appearing for the Mosque committee, submitted that it was an admitted fact that since 1993 there has been no puja in tehkhana and hence, if after 30 years, the court was appointing a receiver and changing the status quo, there should have been some cogent reason behind it. He also submitted that the Hindu plaintiff was never in possession of the Vyas Tehkhana.
The counsels for Hindu side, Hari Shankar Jain and Vishnu Shankar Jain, said that the district judge allowed prayers inside Vyas Tehkhana by invoking powers under section 152 of civil procedure code. Advocate General Ajay Kumar Misra was present on behalf of the state government.