The Gyanvapi Mosque complex as seen from the Kashi Vishwanath Temple.
Credit: PTI Photo
Lucknow: A fresh plea was filed in a fast track court in Varanasi seeking a scientific survey of what the Hindu side had termed as 'shivling', which was found during the last year's scientific survey in the contentious Gyanvapi Mosque complex by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), and other unsurveyed parts of the Mosque.
The plea, filed by one Vijay Shankar Rastogi in the fast track court, contended that it was important to certain if the 'oval' shaped stone structure found in the ASI survey of the Mosque last year was 'shivling' or a 'fountain' as claimed by the Muslim side.
The plea also sought a scientific survey of the unsurveyed parts of the Mosque complex stating that many portions of the Mosque were yet to be surveyed through scientific techniques. ''The ASI had not surveyed the portion beneath the main dome of the Mosque,'' Rastogi said in his plea.
Civil Judge (senior division) Prashant Kumar Singh directed the Anjuman Intezamia Committee, which looked after the Mosque, Central Sunni Waqf Board and the ASI to file objections and posted the matter for further hearing on February 12.
Earlier a petition was filed in the Allahabad high court challenging a Varanasi court's refusal to include 'wazukhana' (the place where the Muslims wash themselves before proceeding to offer prayers) in its order for a scientific survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) last year.
Meanwhile a court of additional district judge in Varanasi on Thursday refused urgent hearing of a petition by the Mosque Committee seeking a stay on the 'puja' in one of the cellars in the Mosque known as 'Vyasji ka Tehkhana' and making the ASI report public by the lawyers of the Hindu plaintiffs.
The lawyer for the Hindu plaintiffs objected to the plea and said that a similar petition challenging the lower court's order to allow 'puja' in the cellar was pending in the Allahabad high court and was scheduled to be heard on February 12.
The court fixed February 15 for further hearing of the matter.