A Varanasi court postponed its order in the Gyanvapi mosque plea to October 11, according to media reports.

The plea by Hindu parties seeks an Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) probe to find out whether the object traced during the survey of the premises is a Shivalinga or a fountain.

District Judge Dr. AK Vishvesha posted the matter on October 11 when he would give an order after hearing the Mosque Committee which sought time for responses to two clarifications raised by the Court - Whether the Shiva Linga (reported to be found) inside the Gyanvapi Mosque premises is a part of suit property or not? Does the court have power to direct 'scientific investigation' of the alleged structure?

For the Hindu Worshippers, advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain told the Court "that the Shivalinga (reported to be found) is a part of the suit property."

To the second query, Jain added, "By virtue of Order 26 Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, the Court has power to direct 'scientific investigation' of Shivalinga reportedly found in the Gyanvapi Mosque premises during the survey."

Based on these clarifications, the Court will hear the Mosque Committee on October 11.

Earlier, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) had termed "disappointing" the Varanasi district court's decision on the maintainability of the Gyanvapi mosque case and urged the government to implement the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, with full force.

The Varanasi district court had it would continue to hear a petition seeking daily worship of Hindu deities whose idols are located on an outer wall of the Gyanvapi Masjid, dismissing the mosque committee's argument that the case is not maintainable.

In a statement, AIMPLB General Secretary Maulana Khalid Saifullah Rahmani said the preliminary decision of the district judge's court was "disappointing and saddening".

Rahmani said, "In the midst of the Babri Masjid controversy in 1991, Parliament had approved that the status quo at all religious places, except the Babri Masjid, would be maintained as in 1947, and no dispute against it would be valid.

"Then in the Babri Masjid case, the Supreme Court upheld the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, and declared it mandatory," he pointed out.