Krishna Janmabhumi Dispute | Allahabad HC Allows Impleadment Of UOI, ASI As Defendants In Hindu Plaintiffs' Suits With ₹5K Costs

A bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra allowed the application subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/— (to be paid to UP Sunni Central Waqf Board), main contesting defendant), noting that the amendment is necessary for “effective adjudication of real controversy in the matter” and also to “avoid multiplicity of suit.”

Essentially, the amendment application had been filed in two suits (Suit no. 1 by Deity Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman and Suit no. 16 by Advocate Hari Shankar Jain) under Order VI Rule 17 CPC stating that they recently learned the property in question was declared a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 published in official Gazette on 27.12.1920.

It added that since the property is under the supervision and management of ASI, it is essential to amend the complaint by impleading ASI and UOI for proper adjudication.

The amendment plea also sought to add new facts that Aurangzeb had demolished the temple and raised the Idgah mosque forcibly, that the diety is the owner in symbolic possession of the property, that the land vests in the deity, etc. On the basis of said pleadings, the plaintiffs sought the relief of converting the mosque into a temple.

Advocate Hari Shankar Jain, who moved the amendment plea, contended that the proposed amendments were an attempt to clarify certain facts already introduced in the plaint with a view to fortify the claim of the plaintiff in the suit and that it wouldn't change the essential prayer made in present suit.

On the other hand, the counsel for the defendant opposed the amendment plea as she contended that the plaintiffs, inter alia, seek to implead new defendants to the present suit and that impleadment of the parties to a suit is not permissible under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

It was strongly argued that the amendment application should be postponed until the Supreme Court decides on an SLP filed challenging the HC's order to dismiss the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as it would lead to unnecessary and untold complications in the case.

Importantly, it was also argued that the Plaintiffs are attempting to negate the defence taken by the Defendant that the Suit is barred by the Places of Worship Act 1991 by setting up a new case.

In other words, she contended that the Plaintiffs are amending their plaint to try to wriggle out of the defendant's defence that the suit is barred under the Places of Worship Act, 1991.

It was lastly submitted that the Notification of 1920 has been in the public domain for over a century, and hence, the Plaintiffs cannot claim ignorance of the same until 2024 and thus, having failed to incorporate any pleadings in respect of the same in the original Plaint, the amendments prayed for should be rejected.

Importantly, certain Hindu plaintiffs also objected to this proposed amendment including Advocate Reena N Singh (appearing in OSUT 4 of 2023 and 7 of 2023, M.P. Singh (appearing in person in OSUT 13), Advocate Anil Kumar Singh (appearing in OSUT 7 of 2023) and Mr. Ashutosh Pandey (appearing in person through virtual mode).

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the bench noted that in spite of filing separate applications under Order 1 Rule 17 CPC for amending the pleadings and under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for adding parties, the plaintiffs submitted a composite application.

The Court further noted that though the application mentions only Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for the amendment, and not Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC for adding parties, the request to add the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and the Union of India is based on new pleadings related to the notification dated 27.12.1920.

Importantly, the bench opined that although it is desirable that a separate application should be filed for amendment in the plaint and impleadment of the parties by way of addition in array of the parties of the plaint, but there is no such mandate under the scheme of CPC and a composite prayer made in one application for amendment in pleadings as well as in array of the parties is not prohibited altogether.

Consequently, treating the amendment application to have been filed under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC as a composite application, the court allowed the same with the following observations:

“The prayer for amendment in pleadings and impleadment of new party distinctly have already been made in the application. No new prayer has been made in the prayer clause. In my considered opinion, neither nature of suit in case of change nor a new cause of action is being introduced or any new relief is prayed for in proposed amendment. On allowing amendment application, interest of defendant can be said to be affected in such manner that can not be compensated by costs. The proposed amendment is necessary for effective adjudication of real controversy in the matter and also to avoid multiplicity of suit. Thus, prayer for amendment in the plaint is liable to be allowed on payment of Rs. 5,000/- payable to defendant no. 1, main contesting defendant.”

Appearances

S/Sri Hari Shankar Jain, Mahendra Pratap Singh, Saurabh Tiwari, Mrs. Reena N.Singh, Harshit Gupta (through Video Conferencing) and Sri Hare Ram Tripathi, Satyaveer Singh, Kushal Raj Chaudhary, Radhey Shyam Yadav, Prateek Kumar Srivastava, Prabhash Pandey, Mayank Singh, Arya Suman Pandey, Sandeep Kumar Agrahari, Manvendra Kumar, Ashvanee Kumar Srivastava, Bipin Kumar Jaiswal, Vinay Sharma, Siddharth Srivastava, Rana Singh, Anil Kumar Singh, Ajay Kumar Singh, Tiwari Abhishek Rajesh and Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Ashutosh Pandey, in person, (through video conferencing) for the plaintiffs.

Mrs. Tasneem Ahmadi (through video conferencing), Sri Nasiruzzaman, Hare Ram Tripathi, Pranav Ojha, Afzal Ahmad, Tanveer Ahmad Khan and Imran, counsels for the defendants.

Case title - Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman At Katra Keshav Dev Khewat No. 255 And 7 Others vs. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board And 3 Others

Click Here To Read/Download Order