Janmabhoomi Dispute | Allahabad HC Allows Suit By Lord Krishna's Next Friend To Proceed As 'Representative Suit' On Behalf Of Devotees

In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court yesterday allowed an application filed on behalf of deity Bhagwan Shri Krishna (through next friend) and others in Suit No. 17 of the ongoing Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Mosque dispute cases to sue in a representative capacity on behalf of and for the benefit of Lord Krishna's devotees."The plaintiff is permitted to sue in representative capacity on behalf of and for the benefit of devotees of Lord Shri Krishna who may be interested in the suit, against the defendant no. 1 to 6 and the entire Muslim community of India", the operative part of the order passed a bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra reads. Importantly, the Court clarified that the plaintiffs were not permitted to sue 'on behalf of' the Muslim community and that the representative capacity allowed by the Court was exclusively in favour of Lord Krishna's devotees. It further directed that a notice under Order 1 Rule 8(1)(a) CPC be issued within 15 days in a national newspaper, at the plaintiff's expense, to all interested persons. The Court has also permitted the plaintiff to move a separate application seeking consequential amendments in the plaint, if required. Briefly put, Suit 17 has been filed by deity Bhagwan Shri Krishna (plaintiff no. 1), Asthan Shri Krishna Janmbhoomi (plaintiff no. 2), and other devotees (plaintiff nos. 3 to 5). The plaintiffs allege that the property in dispute is the birthplace of Lord Krishna and has, since time immemorial, been revered as such. The suit challenges the existence of the Idgah structure as it claims that it is an unauthorised superstructure which was constructed after the demolition of the original temple during the Mughal period. Plaintiffs [represented by Advocate PV Yogeshwaran, assisted by Advocates Tejas Kr. Singh and Ajay Kumar Singh] stated that the defendants (particularly defendant nos. 2 to 6, who happen to be the local Muslims of Mathura) actively participate in the religious affairs of the Muslim community and allegedly represent its collective interest. The application, which was decided yesterday by the court, sought permission to sue in representative capacity against all persons of the Muslim community of India 'having the same interest', through defendant nos. 1 to 6, purportedly representing the said community. The plaintiffs argued that this would avoid multiplicity of litigation and enable a complete and effective adjudication of the suit. On the other hand, Advocate Tasneem Ahmadi, appearing for Defendant No. 1 (the Committee managing the Idgah Mosque) and others, opposed the application, contending that they (the defendants) had never sought leave to represent the Muslim community of India and could not be forced to do so. She argued that representation under Order 1 Rule 8 must be voluntary, and a plaintiff cannot unilaterally claim to sue an entire religious community through select individuals (the defendants). She also referred to earlier court directions and objected that no notice had been ordered to be issued to the Muslim community of India before seeking such sweeping representative relief by the plaintiffs in suit no. 17. Other counsels, too, including those representing plaintiffs in related suits, objected to the maintainability of the application as they argued that it was an abuse of process. Others claimed that the plaintiffs intended to gain popularity and that the application lacks legal foundation since the plaintiff deity already had the right to sue in its own capacity as a juristic person. Some also contended that since 15 suits had already been consolidated, the filing of this application from Suit No. 17 of 2023 (though not consolidated) could disturb the coherence of the main proceedings, where Suit No. 1 of 2023 had been declared as the lead case. Court's observations The Court, at the outset, noted that although the prayer clause in the application was not happily worded, its intent was evident from the pleadings, and it was that the plaintiffs wished to prosecute the suit in a representative capacity against contesting defendants and the wider Muslim community. The Court specifically noted that the plaintiffs had sought permission to prosecute the suit in a representative capacity against all persons of the Muslim community of India, including the contesting defendants. It clarified that this could not be construed as seeking to prosecute the suit 'on behalf of' the Muslim community. "Although the prayer clause in application under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC is not happily worded, yet on reading the pleadings contained in the application the intention of the applicant becomes evident", the Court said. The Court further referred to its previous order of December 19, 2024, noting that public notice had already been issued in a newspaper regarding the institution of the suit in...

Janmabhoomi Dispute | Allahabad HC Allows Suit By Lord Krishna's Next Friend To Proceed As 'Representative Suit' On Behalf Of Devotees

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Janmabhoomi Dispute | Allahabad HC Allows Suit By Lord Krishna's Next Friend To Proceed As 'Representative Suit' On Behalf Of Devotees

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers