Anjuman Intezamia Masajid testifies in the Gyanvapi lawsuit that no temple was destroyed to build a mosque.

Gyanvapi mosque management committee files reply to case no. 182022 Rakhi Singh vs state of Uttar Pradesh .

VARANASI (India)-The Gyanvapi mosque management committee-Anjuman Intezamia Masajid-filed a reply to case no.182022 Rakhi Singh vs state of Uttar Pradesh, in which five women plaintiffs asserted the right to worship Shringar Gauri and other deities in the Gyanvapi mosque compound, arguing that no temple was demolished to create a mosque when the mosque and the temple existed at The reply was filed after the district judges court heard the case again on Thursday.The court scheduled the next hearing in the case on September 29.Moreover, district judge Ajay Krishna Vishvesha rejected seven of the 16 attempts to be a party in the case, describing them as not pressed, while one was withdrawn.

Merajuddin Siddaqi and Rayis Ahmed, two AIM supporters, have written their response to the charges made by the women defendants.Rayis Ahmed said, The majority of the points in the complaint against the defendants are the same.It has already been argued before the court, arguing its legality.We have made it clear that no temple was destroyed for the construction of the mosque.

When KVT exists, how claims can be made for two Jyotirlingas at one site?Ahmed explained that if one of the 12 Jyotirlingas existed at the Kashi Vishwanath temple, how claims can be made for two Jyotirlingas at one site by addressing the problem of old temple and new temple, referring to the points made in the reply.The two pleaded for a clock of eight weeks from the court to start any further proceedings, according to the pair.The Supreme Court had mentioned that the alleged party in the case could go to upper court after transferring the case to district court on May 20.

The issue was discussed before the court, but its decision is being waited.However, plaintiff 2-5 Vishnu Jain's advocate said that SC had not ordered a hearing on May 20, allowing the court of district judge to continue the investigation.Distinction is a term used by the district government counsel (civil) Mahendra Prasad Pandey said, A total of 16 applications had been submitted under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.Seven applicants were excluded from the registry, which the judge considered their applications as not being pursued and rejected.

The plaintiffs were however opposed to their attempt to become a member of the group.We rebuffed Jain's offer,quoting the SC's decision that no one can become a party without the consent of the plaintiffs.On September 29, a new hearing on the subject will be held.