Hours after the Varanasi court's verdict on Gyanvapi case, AIMIM chief A Owaisi on Monday said that there should be an appeal in High Court against this order.
"I hope Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee will appeal against this order," said Owaisi adding that he believes that after this order the purpose of the Places of Worship Act 1991 will fail.
Commenting on the order further he said, "We're going on the same path as that of the Babri masjid issue."
"When judgement on Babri Masjid was given, I warned everyone that this will create problems in the country as this judgement was given on the basis of faith," said the AIMIM chief.
Meamwhile, the Muslim side, said that they will be moving the Allahabad High Court against the judgement.
What did the court say?
The Varanasi district court rejected the plea questioning the maintainability of a petition seeking permission for daily worship of Hindu deities whose idols are located on an outer wall of the Gyanvapi mosque. The district judge delivered a 26-page order in 10 minutes in the presence of restricted 32 persons inside the courtroom, including lawyers of the two sides and plaintiffs.
District Judge A K Vishvesh ordered that it would continue to hear the petition seeking the right to worship deities on the outer wall of the mosque complex located close to the Kashi Vishwanath temple.
The court fixed September 22 as the next date of hearing in the case.
In the order, the judge said, "In view of the discussions and analysis, I have come to the conclusion that the suit of the plaintiffs is not barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act, 1991, The Waqf Act, 1995 and UP Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983, and the application 35C filed by the defendant no. 4 (Anjuman Intezamia) is liable to be dismissed."
Five women had filed the petition seeking permission for daily worship of Hindu deities whose idols are claimed to be located on an outer wall of the Gyanvapi mosque. The Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee has said the Gyanvapi mosque is a Waqf property and questioned the maintainability of the plea.
