Gyanvapi row: Allahabad HC to resume hearing today

The Muslim counsel also said that after the approval of the January 17 application, the judge had become 'functus officio' meaning that his mandate had expired. He also labelled the January 31 order as 'totally bad in law'.

The Allahabad High Court on Monday adjourned till February 15 the hearing on a plea challenging the Varanasi district court order allowing Hindu prayers in a cellar of the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi.

The Muslim side presented its arguments and alleged that Hindu side was not in possession on the mosque's Tehkhana (south cellar) after 1993. The side also questioned the January 31 order allowing the Hindi side to perform puja in the cellar.

Justice Rohit Ranjan Agrawal passed the order on the appeal filed by the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid committee, which looks after the affairs of the mosque adjacent to the Kashi Vishwanath temple.

Arguing for the Muslim side, Advocate Puneet Gupta said that no puja was held in the Tehkhana after 1993 and this is an 'admitted fact'.

He further said, "If after 30 years the Court is appointing a receiver and changing status quo, there must be some cogent reason", as per LiveLaw.

Gupta further argued that Hindus were 'never in possession of the Tehkhana'. He also said that after the approval of the January 17 application, the judge had become 'functus officio' meaning that his mandate had expired.

"Prayer A was allowed and Prayer B was modified. Koi clerical mistake hoti to change kar dete (If there was any clerical mistake, they could have changed it on January 31), but the District Judge changed the entire order", he said.

Gupta labelled the January 31 order as 'totally bad in law'.

"Not a single line in that regard, no balance of convenience, no irreparable loss. There is no satisfaction recorded", he said.

Senior counsel for the Muslim side, S F A Naqvi said that the site's possession was to be decided after framing of issues but by the operative portion 'judge said something else'.

Speaking about the January 31 order, Naqvi also argued that the court accepted the plaintiff's argument as 'gospel truth' and passed the order.

"This order (January 31) itself reflects that the order was not passed under any provisions of CPC. It was passed under the influence of the plaintiff. There is no written statement, who is this person who appears after 30 years and claims rights", he said.

The Muslim side also filed certified copies of court orders which were not filed earlier, which were taken on record.

The Hindu side in the case also filed some papers to prove their possession on the property in dispute.

The Anjuman Intezamia Masjid committee moved the high court on February 2 within hours of the Supreme Court refusing to hear its plea against the Varanasi district court order and asking it to approach the high court.

The Varanasi district court had ruled on January 31 that a priest can perform prayers before the idols in the southern cellar of the Gyanvapi mosque.

(With PTI inputs)