The court's order came today on a petition related to three demands, including handing over the Gyanvapi campus to Hindus. The court of Civil Judge Senior Division Fast Track Court Mahendra Kumar Pandey has considered Kiran Singh's petition as admissible. Now the hearing on this will be held on December 2.

In this matter, the arguments of both the parties were completed in the court on October 15 itself. Since then the file was pending in the order. In this episode, Vadini Kiran Singh sought permission to bar the entry of Muslims, hand over the premises to Hindus and worship the Shivling and perform Raag Bhog. Now the court has considered this matter as hearable.

Advocate Anupam Dwivedi, representing the Hindu side, said that in the Gyanvapi Masjid case, the Varanasi court has dismissed the petition filed by the Masjid Committee challenging the maintainability of the suit. The next hearing of the case will be on December 2.

On the next date, there will be a hearing on the application for immediate worship. In view of the order of the court on Thursday, there was tremendous security arrangement in the court premises. Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh has welcomed this order of the court. 

Advocates of plaintiff Kiran Singh had argued that whether the suit is maintainable or not, the objection raised by the Anjuman Arrangement is a matter of evidence and trial. Except the dome of Gyanvapi, everything belongs to the temple, when the trial will take place, only then will it be known whether it is a mosque or a temple.  

Referring to the decision of Deen Mohammad, said that there was no Hindu party in that case, therefore it does not apply to the Hindu side. It is also argued that the Special Places of Worship Bill, 1991 is not applicable in this case. The structure is not known whether it is a temple or a mosque. The civil court has the right to try it.

It is a historical fact that Aurangzeb ordered the demolition of the temple and the construction of a mosque. The Waqf Act does not apply to the Hindu side. As such, this suit is maintainable and the application filed by Anjuman on the point of maintainability is liable to be dismissed. 

The advocates of the Hindu side had argued that the deity has a fundamental right to get his property under Right to Property. In this case, being a minor, this suit has been filed through a friend of the suit. If it is God's property, then the claim can be made through a litigant friend considering it as a minor. Acceptance does not confer ownership. It has to be told from where and how the property was acquired. In support of the suit in the court, 6 rulings of the Supreme Court and the Constitution were also cited. 

On the other hand, the Muslim side i.e. Mumtaz Ahmed, Tauheed Khan, Rais Ahmed, Mirajuddin Khan and Ekhlaq Khan, on behalf of the Anjuman Intejamia Masjid, raised questions in the court and said that on one hand it is being said that the suit is filed on behalf of the deity. On the other hand, people associated with the public are also involved in this dispute.

No paper has been filed on what this suit is based on and there is no evidence. Story does not run the court, there is a difference between story and history. The history that is there will be written. Along with filing legal precedents, it was said that the suit is not maintainable and it should be dismissed.