CJI Ranjan Gogoi says matter has to be concluded by Oct 18 and won't be heard beyond that.
Before that there was no power for scientific or technical investigation.
However, there is a second part to Rule 10.
Court might have to decide that aspect of law, Dhavan.
Rajeev Dhavan responds:
"Have I forfeited my right to reply due to Rule 10(2)? 10(2) is not mandatory"
Meenakshi Arora now takes over from Dhavan.
Period 1 - 6th to 3rd century BC
Period 2 - Sunga (2nd century BC to 1st century BC)
Period 3 - Kushan (1st to 3rd century AD)
Period 4 - Gupta (4th to 6th century AD), Arora.
You show us what was the finding immediately below, CJI Ranjan Gogoj
The issue is a massive wall and pillar bases which are supposed to have rested a massive structure. The relevant period is mediveal and early mediveal period, Meenakshi Arora.
Wall faces west, like any Eidgah. Why should there be an inference that such a wall is part of temple? Meenakshi Arora.
My current argument is only based on report, that if one inference is possible the other is equally possible, Meenakshi Arora.
If the pillar bases were not from one single period as stated in the report, then it could not have been part of a one massive contiguous structure as inferred, Meenakshi Arora.
Arora also refers to the summary of the ASI report to buttress her arguments.
Meenakshi Arora point to page 81 of ASI report.
"Today is the 32nd day of the hearing. You go on making arguments till my last working day", CJI Ranjan Gogoi expressing his displeasure.
Cannot conjecturise that the wall came from one massive structure resting on pillars at different levels from different periods, Meenakshi Arora.
Says that the buildings constructed back then might have its shortcomings, they cannot be compared modern engineering benchmarks. You cannot say this pillar is 2.6 inches lessee than one.
Pillar bases are not in alignment, Meenakshi Arora.
The difference in sizes of pilllar bases is also humonguous, says Meenakshi Arora.
How can the shrine be below pillar bases? Or was there a temple below the temple. The shrine is explained away as a subsidiary shrine, Meenakshi Arora.
The temple is said to have been built before lime surkhi came to be used, Meenkashi Arora.
"Are you excluding possibility of a temple because of use of lime surkhi", SA Bobde J.
My submission is one it is too old, and two, it was too small to carry out any worship, Meenakshi Arora submits.
"This need not be pranala", Bobde J looking at the photo.
"It is the case of ASI that it is" Meenakshi Arora.
"ASI is not authority for everything", Bobde J.
"I rest my case", Arora.
Bench maintains that all these objections should have been put to the expert during trial.
"He might have given you an answer", CJI Ranjan Gogoi.