June 13, 2026 09:13 pm (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Tragedy in the skies: Five IAF personnel killed in AN-32 crash in Assam | 'Ask probe officers whether I hid anything': Abhishek Banerjee hits back after pre-dawn police search | Police storm Abhishek Banerjee's house at 3 am tracking aide, Mamata arrives; seizure list says 'NIL' | Big boost for India's security: DRDO successfully tests advanced missile shield | Indian-origin man jailed for 34 years in UK over horrific kidnap, torture and rape case | Mamata's nightmare deepens! Saayoni Ghosh, Dev, Rachana Banerjee among 19 rebel MPs seeking TMC split | Trump claims US 'ended war with Iran', Tehran yet to confirm a deal | Heartbreak for Indian sports: Manu Bhaker's mentor Jaspal Rana passes away at 49 | Three Indian seafarers, missing after US strike on tanker near Oman, confirmed dead | 'Choose your side': TMC MP Kalyan Banerjee's ultimatum to Mamata in open revolt against Abhishek
Gyanvapi row
Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

Gyanvapi: Plea for daily worship not barred by any act

| @indiablooms | Nov 18, 2022, at 01:25 am

Varanasi/UNI: A Varanasi court on Thursday said the plea filed seeking daily permission to 'worshipping' of the Shivling-like structure inside the Gyanvapi Mosque was not barred by any act and hence it is maintainable while rejecting the application moved by the Masajid Intezamia Committee under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC (Code of Civil Procedure).

Anupam Dwivedi, the counsel of the Bhagwan Adi Vishweshwar Virajman and others, said the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Fast Track Court Mahendra Kumar Pandey has now fixed Dec 2 as the next date of hearing.

He said the court rejected the application and that the plea is not maintainable.

In its order, the court observed, "This court has come to the conclusion that the suit of the plaintiffs is not barred by the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8, Order 7 Rule 3 and Section 9 of CPC, Places of Worship Special Provisions) Act, 1991, The Waqf Act 1995, the UP Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 and The Indian Limitation Act."

The court said, "So far as the judicial precedent is concerned in Suit No. 62 of 1936 Deen Mohammad and others versus Secretary of the State, the court of Civil Judge, Varanasi passed judgment and decree dated July 24, 1937."

It said, "After analysing the argument of both the parties I found that the plaintiffs were not parties in the Suit number 62 of 1936 Deen Mohammad and others versus secretary and their application for impleadment in the suit was also rejected.

"Therefore, the decree passed in the above-mentioned suit cannot have a binding effect against the plaintiffs or the Hindu community and their right to worship cannot be defeated on the strength of above-mentioned decree."

Notably, in the plea Adi Visheshwara Virajman and others versus the State of Uttar Pradesh and others the plaintiff Kiran Singh Visen has sought permission for daily worship of the Shivling-like structure found inside the wazookhana of the Gyanvapi mosque.

Besides, it has also sought instructions that the place should be handed over to the Hindus and entry of non-Hindus should be banned on the premises.

Support Our Journalism

We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism

IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.

Support objective journalism for a small contribution.