Krishna Janmabhoomi Case| 'Decide Suit Without Being Influenced By District Judge's Observations On Merits Of Case': Allahabad HC To Mathura Court

The Allahabad High Court today directed a Court in Mathura to decide the suit pertaining to the Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah land dispute, pending before it, without being influenced by the observations made by the Mathura District Judge on the merits/contentious issues of the case in its 19 May 2022 order.Significantly, this order of the Allahabad High Court has paved the way for the resumption of the hearing of the suit before the Mathura Court seeking the removal of the Shahi Eidgah (mosque), located adjacent to the Shri Krishna temple complex in Mathura, and the transfer of 13.37-acre land to the deity-Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman."...both the petitions are disposed of by remanding the matter back to the Trial Court with directions to adjudicate the Civil Suit no. 353 of 2022 after following due procedure as per law without being influenced by any observation or findings of the District Judge vide impugned order dated 19.05.2022. All the parties are free to raise all their contentions before the trial Court," the bench of Justice Pradia said.The HC earlier stayed the suit proceedings in August 2022 after the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board moved the HC, challenging the 19th May order of the District Judge of Mathura court which held that the suit to remove the Shahi Idgah Masjid, allegedly built on the land of Shrikrishna Janam Bhoomi was maintainable.Though the bench of Justice Pradia today refused to set aside the 19th May order of the District Judge, the bench however said that the District Judge should not have decided/made remarks on the contentious issues/merits involved in the suit.For context, the District Judge had, while holding the suit to be maintainable in the revision plea, inter alia, made several observations regarding the merits of the case including that the provisions of The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 are not applicable to the suit. In fact, the District Judge had reasoned that the agreement in challenge resulted in a compromise decree, which was drawn before the commencement of the Act of 1991 and since, the same is the subject matter of challenge in the suit moved by the petitioner, therefore, by virtue of section 4 (3)(b) of 1991 Act, the act shall not be applicable on this dispute.To understand how the case reached the District Judge's court forming an occasion for it to make remarks on the merits of the case, we have to understand the background of the case. The same is explained below.The background of the caseA suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) had been filed in September 2020 on behalf of the deity Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman seeking the removal of the Shahi Eidgah (mosque) and the transfer of 13.37-acre land to the deity.The Petitioners/Revisionists Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman, Asthan Shrikrishna Janam Bhoomi through Next Friend Ranjana Agnihotri further sought cancellation of a compromise decree of 1974 by saying that the agreement between Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan and Shahi Idgah Trust in the year 1973, on the basis of which an earlier suit filed in 1964 was compromised, was fraudulent.It was stated that in the agreement concerned, the Sansthan had conceded the property of Deity/Trust in favour of Trust Masjid Idgah. In the 2020 suit, the plaintiffs challenged that very agreement and compromise decree of 1974 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division).However, the Civil Judge (Senior Division) did not register the suit as a civil suit and in turn, registered the case as a Miscellaneous case on the ground that the Plaintiff Nos. 3 to 8 are not residents of Mathura whereas the property in question is situated in District Mathura.Further, on September 30, 2020, it refused to admit the suit and in fact it rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that the Plaintiffs, being the devotees/worshippers of Lord Krishna, have no right to file the suit.Now, this order was challenged in appeal by the petitioners before the District & Sessions Judge Mathura. Hearing the appeal, the DJ's Court first directed the appeal to be registered as a revision plea and later on, it allowed the said revision plea on May 19 and directed the Trial court to hear both parties and to pass the appropriate order taking into account its Judgment.Subsequently, the case came to be listed before the Trial Court on May 26, 2022, when the Civil suit was registered as Original Suit No. 353 of 2022 and summons were issued by the trial court fixing July 1, 2022, for filing the Written Statements and framing of issues, however, since the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board challenged the District Judge's order by way of instant plea under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the HC stayed further proceedings before the trial court in August 2022.High Court's observationsDealing with the plea of the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board, the HC found faults with the order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) registering the suit in question as a Miscellaneous...

Krishna Janmabhoomi Case| 'Decide Suit Without Being Influenced By District Judge's Observations On Merits Of Case': Allahabad HC To Mathura Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags