Varanasi: A hearing on the Gyanvapi case was held in Varanasi district court today. Hearing the arguments of both sides, the court reserved the verdict. The decision will come tomorrow at 2 pm. In fact, on behalf of the plaintiff, it was demanded from the court of the District Judge that the court should first look at the evidence collected during the survey, and then hear further. On the other hand, the respondent Muslim side wanted to hear only on the maintainability of the case. On which the court has fixed the date of hearing for tomorrow.
Separate demands have been made from the Hindu and Muslim sides on the Gyanvapi Masjid case.
1. Demand for daily worship of Shringar Gauri
2. Demand for the worship of alleged Shivling found in Vajukhana
3. Demand to remove the debris by breaking the wall to the north of Nandi
4. Survey demands knowing the length, and width of Shivling
5. Demand for making alternative arrangements for Vazukhana
1. protest against sealing of Vazukhana
2. Question on Gyanvapi survey and case under 1991 Act
The apex court had transferred this matter to the Varanasi court. The Supreme Court has directed the district court to complete the trial within 8 weeks. Senior advocate Madan Bahadur Singh argued on behalf of the Hindu side in the Varanasi District Court. Advocates Hari Shankar Jain and Vishnu Shankar Jain were also present with him. On the other hand, advocates Raees Ahmed and C Abhay Yadav appeared from the Muslim side. On behalf of the Muslim side, Abhay Nath Yadav referred to the 1936 case of Din Mohammad. He said that Namaz is being offered in Gyanvapi Masjid for a long time, hence it is a mosque and the High Court had also given a verdict in Muslim favour.
Prior to the hearing, former court commissioner Ajay Mishra was stopped from entering the courtroom. Actually, limited people went to the courtroom today. Only 23 people were allowed in the courtroom and Ajay Mishra's name was not in the list. District Judge Dr Ajay Kumar Vishvesh had directed that during the hearing in the Gyanvapi case today, only the lawyers associated with the case will be present in the courtroom. Due to this, only 23 people were present in the courtroom.