Allahabad HC reserves order on Mathura dispute suits

Taslima Aziz Ahmadi appearing on behalf of the Muslim side submitted before the court that the provisions of the Waqf Act will apply and it was the Waqf tribunal which has the jurisdiction to hear the matter.

She informed the court that the parties had entered a compromise on October 12, 1968, which was confirmed in a civil suit decided in 1974.

Ahmadi said the limitation to challenge a compromise is three years but the present suit was filed in 2020 and thus, is barred by the law of limitation.

Advocate Saurabh Tiwari, who appeared on behalf of the Hindu side, opposed the arguments, saying the Places of Worship Act, 1991, applies only in cases of undisputed structures and not for disputed ones as in the present case.

In the present case, the character of the structure is yet to be decided, he argued. Thus no suit can be filed after such a long time, as the limitation to challenge a compromise is three years, the counsel contended.

The Muslim side has, however, argued that the suits are barred under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, and the Waqf Act.

Tiwari said Justice Mayank Kumar Jain on Friday reserved the verdict under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code after hearing both sides at length. “The court has been hearing the matter since February 22. We expect the judgment to be pronounced in the first week of July,” he said.

In January this year, the High Court consolidated the petitions related to the dispute, stating that these suits are of a similar nature.

“The proceedings in these suits can be taken up and they may be decided simultaneously on the basis of common evidence. To save the time of the court, the expenses to be incurred to the parties, and to avoid conflicting judgments it appears expedient in the interest of justice to consolidate the suits with each other,” the court had said.

The HC had also noted that the Sunni Waqf Board, the Shahi Idgah Masjid management committee, and other defendants had earlier submitted that suits of similar nature and involving the same question “may be consolidated”.

In December last year, the HC allowed an application for the appointment of a commission to inspect the mosque complex.

The Hindu petitioners contend the mosque was built on the Krishna Janmasthan, the birthplace of Lord Krishna. They pleaded that the mosque was built on the orders of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb after demolishing a temple.

In May 2023, the HC had transferred to itself all the suits on the case.       with PTI inputs