Delhi High Court Declines Urgent Listing Of Plea Against Stopping Of Namaz At Mosque Near Qutub Minar Complex

Update: 2022-06-06 07:08 GMT
story

The Delhi High Court on Monday again declined urgent listing of a plea against stopping of namaaz at a mosque in city's Mehrauli area present near Qutub Minar complex. A vacation bench comprising of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri and Justice Poonam A. Bamba said that there was no urgency in hearing the matter, thereby declining the urgent listing made by Advocate M Sufian Siddiqui on behalf of...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Delhi High Court on Monday again declined urgent listing of a plea against stopping of namaaz at a mosque in city's Mehrauli area present near Qutub Minar complex.

A vacation bench comprising of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri and Justice Poonam A. Bamba said that there was no urgency in hearing the matter, thereby declining the urgent listing made by Advocate M Sufian Siddiqui on behalf of the Managing Committee of Delhi Waqf Board. 

The name of the mosque is 'Mughal Mosque', which is a duly Gazette Notified Waqf property vide Notification dated: 16.04.1970, there is a duly appointed Imam and Moazin. 

Importantly, a division bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi last week also declined urgent hearing of the matter.

The counsel mentioned that this mosque is a live mosque, a gazetted waqf property where people were regularly offering Namaz. However, suddenly, the Archaeological Survey of India on 15th May stopped them from offering prayers.

In a related news, city's Saket District Court is set to pronounce order on June 9 on the appeals preferred against a Civil Judge order dismissing the suit which alleged that the Quwwat-Ul-Islam Masjid situated within Qutub Minar Complex was built in place of a temple complex and sought restoration of the same.

In the original suit, the plaintiffs had alleged that around 27 Hindu and Jain temples were desecrated and damaged raising the construction of the said Mosque in place of those temples.

The civil judge had rejected the suit after noting that the suit was barred by the provisions of the Places of Worship Act 1991 and rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of Civil Procedure Code for non-­disclosure of cause of action.

Tags:    

Similar News