On May 17, the top court had ordered that the object stated to have been found during the survey of the mosque, be protected.
In light of the fact that the order protecting the object was due to expire on November 12, the Hindu parties approached the Court by way of the present plea seeking extension of the order.
It was also also pointed out that the Order 7 Rule 11 (rejection of plaints) application filed by the Muslim parties was rejected.
The Gyanvapi dispute arose when Hindu devotees approached a civil court claiming the right to worship inside the premises of the Gyanvapi Mosque, on the ground that it was a Hindu temple and still houses Hindu deities.
The civil court ordered a survey of the Mosque by an advocate commissioner. The advocate commissioner then conducted the videographed survey and submitted a report to the civil court.
Based on the survey report, the Hindu parties claimed that an object discovered at the site is a Shivling. The Muslim parties, however, disputed the same and said that it is only a water fountain.
Meanwhile, the suit before the civil court was transferred to the District Judge by the Supreme Court on May 20 in view of the sensitivity of the issue involved.
The District Court, on September 12, held that the suit was not barred under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
Source: Barandbench
