Reader TTS

WHAT HAVE THE PLAINTIFFS SOUGHT? Plaintiff Kiran Singh has sought an ad interim injunction against the masjid committee, asking that they should not prevent the entry of Hindu devotees for

purposes of performing religious activities at the spot in the masjid where a ‘shivling’ is indicated to have been found. The plaintiffs have reportedly, cited urgency, and sought an

exemption from the civil procedure rule that mandates 60 days’ notice to be given to the state government. Meanwhile. an impleadment application was filed before the fast-track court by the

Kendriya Brahman Mahasabha, as well. A district court in Varanasi is already hearing the masjid committee’s plea challenging the maintainability of a suit filed by five Hindu women seeking

that they be allowed to carry out year-round access to carry out Hindu rituals at the mosque complex. The suit has been challenged on the grounds that The Places of Worship Act (1991)

expressly bars conversion of any place of worship into anything different from the religious character of the place as it was on 15 August 1947 (with the exception of the Ayodhya dispute).

This came after Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice DY Chandrachud, ordered that a "senior and experienced" district judge may decide on the maintainability of the petition

(under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC). The top court had also subsumed a lower court's order which could have led to a bar on entry of Muslim devotees and said that _namaz _may continue

to be offered in the mosque with the district magistrate securing the spot where the alleged _shivling_ is indicated to have been found. MONDAY'S DISTRICT COURT HEARING The Varanasi

district court continued hearing the application questioning the maintainability of the suit filed by the five Hindu women on Monday. Appearing for the Masjid Committee, Advocate Abhay Nath,

according to _LiveLaw_, dubbed the claim by the plaintiffs that Masjid premises is not a waqf party as wrong. Further, the counsel pointed out that in the Din Mohd case (1937), the court

had decided which area is the property of the mosque and which area is the property of the temple, and according to that, the entire compound of the Gyanvapi Masjid “belongs to the Muslim

Waqf and Muslims have right to offer namaz in it.” The masjid committee also objected to the plaintiffs’ claim that they should be allowed to worship the ‘shivling’ indicated to have been

found inside the mosque. The matter has been posted for further hearing on 4 July and the court is slated to deliver an order over the handing over of the mosque report, including the

videography and the pictures shortly. Further, as per _LiveLaw, _Hindu Sena, Brahmin Sabha, and Nirmohi Akhara, have also approached the district court seeking impleadment in the suit as

plaintiffs. _(With inputs from Bar and Bench and LiveLaw.)_