Gyanvapi case: Hindu side files caveat in HC, request to be heard if revision filed

The caveat has been filed by Advocate Prabhash Pandey and Vishnu Shankar Jain on behalf of Rekha Pathak.

The petitioner in her caveat has stated that the proposed petitioner Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid, through its secretary, alleged Gyanvapi Masjid, Office at Pili Kothi, Varanasi, is aggrieved by the order dated September 12 passed by the District Judge, Varanasi.

She has stated that the order as mentioned is being supposed to be challenged by the proposed revisionist by filing the present proposed civil revision before the court.

The petitioner has stated that the caveator or applicant is the affected party hence they may be heard in opposition to the present civil revision seeking stay of the impugned order dated September 12 in the interest of justice otherwise they would suffer irreparable loss and injury.

She has maintained that in view of the above, it is expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that no orders be passed in the aforesaid matter without notice to the caveator/applicant and without giving an opportunity of being heard to the caveator/applicant in the above. mentioned matter.

The petition stated, "It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that let nothing be done if any revision or any other proceeding is instituted against the order passed by the District Judge, Varanasi in civil suit and further this court may graciously be pleased to direct that the counsel for the proposed opposite party to serve the copy of the instant civil revision along with its annexure and stay application, if any, to the counsel for the caveator/applicant.

The move came after the counsel of the Muslim side Mohammad Touhid said that they will approach the Allahabad High Court.

It may be noted that on Monday the Varanasi District Court in a key ruling in the ongoing Gyanvapi Mosque case said a plea of the Hindu side seeking daily prayer at Maa Shringar Gauri Sthal inside the complex was not barred for hearing by any Act as claimed by the Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee.

District Judge Ajay Krishna Vishvesha observed, "In view of the above discussions and analysis, I have come to the conclusion that the suit of the plaintiffs is not barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, The Waqf Act 1995 and the UP Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 and the application 35C filed by the defendant number 4 (Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee) is liable to be dismissed."

He ordered that the application 35C filed by the defendant number 4 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is hereby dismissed. "Fix September 22 for filing written statement and framing of issues. The applications pending under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by different applicants shall also be disposed of on this day," he said.

(With UNI inputs)