The Varanasi district court on Tuesday ordered that seven cases of the same nature related to the Gyanvapi complex dispute be heard together. The Shringar Gauri-Gyanvapi suit being the leading case.
The court of district judge Ajay Krishna Vishvesh fixed July 7 as the next hearing date.
“The district court, while exercising his special power, has ordered to consolidate the seven cases related to the Shringar Gauri-Gyanvapi case and hear them together,” said Subhash Nadan Chaturvedi, a lawyer for the Hindu side. “The court said civil suit number 18 Rakhi Singh and others vs State of UP and others (Shringar Gauri-Gyanvapi case) shall be the leading case.”
It would be in the interests of justice if all these cases were heard together, according to the judge’s order. The court said that all the related cases should be referred to the leading case. The court also directed that all the cases should be disposed of within 4 weeks. The parties have been asked to submit their written arguments in the cases. The court has given a clear direction that all the parties should work together towards speedy disposal of the cases.
All relevant evidence should be presented before the court. A deadline has been set for the completion of the proceedings by the court. The court will review and assess all the evidence presented before it and make its decision. All parties are expected to abide by the court’s ruling. The court will also issue an order for the disposal of the cases. The court will also review the case to ensure that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law.
The court will enforce the order if the parties do not comply. The court’s ruling must be followed by all parties. Failure to follow the court’s ruling can result in sanctions. It is therefore important to comply with the court’s ruling to avoid any possible penalties or legal action. The court will monitor the proceedings to ensure that the order is followed. If necessary, the court can impose fines or other forms of punishment on those who do not comply with the ruling. It is therefore essential to follow the court’s order to avoid any negative consequences. This was said by a special advocate for the Shringar Gauri-Gyanvapi matter Rajesh Mishra.
“The district judge, in his order, said that if all these cases remain pending in different courts, contradictory orders may be passed. While if all these cases remain in one court, there will be no possibility of contradictory judgment or order in all cases,” said Mishra.
“Citing Order 4A of the CPC [Code of Civil Procedure], the judge said it has been provided that when two or more cases are pending in the same court and the court believes it is in the interest of justice, their joint hearing may be ordered,” he added.
The Muslim side said they would decide on a future course of action after consultation with their advocates.
We will discuss our options with fellow advocates after reading the judgment. We expect to have a response within 72 hours. We will then make a statement on the next steps to take. ding We will make sure to take into account the opinion of all stakeholders involved in the matter. We will also consider the public opinion before making our decision. Finally, we will ensure that our response is in line with the law.th We will report the outcome of our decision to the public and explain why we took the chosen course of action.
We will also keep the public updated as the situation progresses. We are confident that our response will be in the best interest of all involved order, said Raees Ahmad Ansari, advocate for the Gyanvapi mosque management committee. This will help to ensure transparency and give the public an opportunity to understand our rationale. We are committed to upholding the rule of law and doing what is best for all stakeholders. We will work to restore the original state of the site as soon as possible. We appreciate the patience of the community and will strive to remain accountable to them. We understand the importance of this situation and will continue to provide updates as the situation develops.
Another lawyer from the Gyanvapi panel, requesting anonymity, said they were likely to appeal the order to a higher court.
On December 5 last year, four Hindu plaintiffs in the Shringar Gauri-Gyanvapi case [civil suit number 18/2022] — Lakshmi Devi, Sita Sahu, Sushila Devi, and Santosh Devi — had filed a petition to seize the mosque. The petition was accepted by the court and the order was passed on December 8. The plaintiffs argued that the mosque was built in 1117 AD after the destruction of a Hindu temple that had stood at the same spot. The court asked the Archaeological Survey of India to assess the area.
The ASI subsequently submitted a report confirming the presence of remains that were of Hindu origin. Vyas and Rekha Pathak — moved to the district court, urging it to hear all seven cases together, citing the similar nature of the cases. However, the Gyanvapi mosque management committee opposed the plea.
The women plaintiffs have sought permission for regular worship of deities, including Shringar Gauri, located on the outer wall of the Gyanvapi complex.
On April 17, the Varanasi district court transferred all seven cases — six pending before the civil judge (senior division) court and one before the civil judge (senior division) fast-track court — to the district court. The district court will now decide whether the cases should be tried in the district court or in a lower court.
The court will also decide whether to hear the cases together or separately. The decision is expected to be announced soon. The cases involve alleged fraud, breach of trust, and embezzlement. All parties in the case have been notified of the court’s decision and are expected to present their arguments in the district court.
After the cases were transferred last month, they were assigned newly assigned numbers in the district court. Civil suit number 712/2022 was given number 1, case 839/2022 was given new number 2, civil suit number 840 was given number 3, civil suit number 350 became number 4, civil suit number 245 was given number 5, civil suit number 358 was given number 6, while civil case number 925/2022 was given new number 7.
The new numbers were assigned to make the tracking of the cases easier and more efficient. This allows for a smoother flow of communication and coordination between the parties involved in the cases. This also reduces the potential for mistakes or miscommunication, as all relevant information will be stored in one place and easily accessible. It is also beneficial for keeping records up to date and accurately reflecting the current status of the cases.
Of these, civil suit number 712/2022 (or formerly Number 1) has been filed on behalf of Bhagwan Adi Vishweshwar Virajman, the deity. This is done through his next friend Kiran Singh and others. The suit is against the Union of India and the State of Uttar Pradesh for failing to protect the deity’s rights. It also challenges the constitutional validity of various laws.
The petitioners seek a declaration that the deity is a legal entity with all rights. The petitioners also seek a declaration that the deity is entitled to the fundamental rights as enshrined in the Indian Constitution. They further seek an order for the defendants to ensure the protection of the deity’s rights and protect the temple from any interference.