April 30, 2026 05:28 am (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Exit Polls Give Bengal to BJP—But One Survey Begs to Differ | Big defence push: Rajnath Singh to hold high-stakes talks with Italy’s Defence Minister | “Voting without fear”: PM Modi hails record turnout in West Bengal polls | Mamata Banerjee trying to intimidate Hindu voters, alleges Suvendu Adhikari in Bhabanipur | Operation Sindoor boost: India is now fifth-largest military spender at USD 92.1 billion in 2025, Pakistan's spending is also up | ‘Got the guts?’ Derek O’Brien dares Modi to quit if Mamata Banerjee wins Bengal polls | ECI ‘harassing’ TMC, dancing to BJP’s tune: Mamata Banerjee in Bhabanipur | ‘Nothing like playing football’: PM Modi unwinds in Sikkim after Bengal poll blitz | Crackdown on D-Company: Dawood aide Salim Dola deported to India | Mumbai horror: Man asks two security guards to recite ‘kalma’, then stabs them
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.