Krishna Janmabhumi Dispute | Allahabad HC Reserves Verdict On Masjid Committee's Plea Challenging Maintainability Of 18 Suits

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday concluded the hearing and reserved its verdict on an application filed by Shahi Idgah Masjid (under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC) challenging the maintainability of 18 suits filed by the deity and the Hindu parties concerning Mathura's Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute.Though the Court reserved its verdict in the matter in the open court after the conclusion of arguments on May 31, a bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain reopened the case and posted the matter for hearing to give Masjid Committee's Advocate Mohammad Pracha another chance to address the Court.The Court decided to hear Advocate Pracha after the Masjid Committee filed an application before the bench, praying that its right to an audience not be obstructed in any manner.Appearing for the Masjid Committee on June 6, Advocate Pracha made threefold arguments:Firstly, Advocate Tasneem Ahmadi has concluded the arguments on the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, advanced on behalf of the defendants, and, therefore, the hearing on the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC stands concluded.Secondly, his right to the audience should be protected in view of the unruly behaviour of learned counsel for the plaintiffs at the hearing on May 30, 2024, and videography of further court proceedings should also be conducted.Thirdly, since the suit concerns the plaintiffs and defendants, there is no provision allowing the Court to appoint any person or lawyer as Amicus Curiae.In view of this, the Court at the outset, RESERVED its verdict on the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.So far as the argument to protect the right to an audience of Advocate Pracha was concerned, the Court observed that the same relates to further hearing in the matter.The Court also noted that since certain allegations are made against counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs, their versions are also required to be heard on this issue. Therefore, the Court decided to take up the issue after the order on the maintainability of the Suit was pronounced.So far as Advocate Pracha's argument that the appointment of Amicus Curiea is not in accordance with the law is concerned, the Court said that an application for removal of Amicus Curiea is already pending consideration. In view of that, this issue shall also be taken up after the order on the maintainability of the Suit is pronounced.Lastly, the Court also took on record an application moved by one Ashutosh Pandey, who appears in person, praying for a direction that only true contents of the orders to be passed by the Court in the matter should be published in the Newspapers and print media and not otherwise. However, the Court decided to consider the application at the "appropriate stage".With this, the Single Judge finally reserved the verdict after hearing the arguments of the masjid committee filed under Order VII Rule 11 (challenging the maintainability of janmabhumi suits) and the arguments raised by the Hindu plaintiffs, including the diety. The Court started hearing the masjid committee's objections in February this year.Arguments made before the CourtBefore the Court, the Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah (Mathura) primarily argued that the suits pending before the HC were barred by the Places of Worship Act 1991, Limitation Act 1963, and Specific Relief Act 1963.Appearing for the Mosque committee, Advocate Tasneem Ahmadi contended that in the majority of the suits pending before the HC, the plaintiffs are seeking the right to the title of the land, which was the subject matter of a compromise arrived at in 1968 between Shree Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sangh and the management of the Shahi Masjid Idgah, dividing the disputed land and asking the 2 groups to stay away from each other's areas (within the 13.37-acre complex), however, the suits are specifically barred by law (the Places of Worship Act 1991, Limitation Act 1963 as well as the Specific Relief Act 1963).On the other hand, the Hindu plaintiffs argued that no property in the name of Shahi Idgah is in the government records, and the same is occupied illegally. It was also said that if the said property is a Waqf property, then the Waqf Board should tell who donated the disputed property. It was also argued that the Acts of Worship Act, Limitation Act, and Waqf Act are not applicable in this case.Challenging the maintainability of the Original Suits no 6, 9, 16 and 18 (inter alia seeking removal of Shahi Idgah), Advocate Ahmadi argued that the plaintiff has, in the plaint, admitted the compromise of 1968 and the fact that the possession of the land (where Idagh is built) is under the control of the Mosque management and therefore, the suit, would be barred by the Limitation Act as well as the Places of Worship Act as the suits also admit the fact that the mosque in question was built in 1669-70.For context, the limitation period for instituting civil suits is three years from the date the cause of...

Krishna Janmabhumi Dispute | Allahabad HC Reserves Verdict On Masjid Committee's Plea Challenging Maintainability Of 18 Suits

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags