Welcoming the Allahabad High Court's order rejecting a plea to defer the judgement in the Ayodhya title suit case,leading lawyers today expressed hope that that all sides to the dispute would abide by the verdict and not not incite passions. They maintained that it was the job of courts to deliver verdicts though efforts could always be made for striking an amicable out-of-court settlement. Eminent counsel Harish Salve said the court's job was to give judgements and it was for the government to maintain law and order. He said he was surprised that efforts were being made to avoid a judgement. Referring to an incident in the 1990s,when it was prayed before the Supreme Court that the case relating to Kalyan Singh in a contempt matter be adjourned because there was a BJP rally on a particular day,Justice M N Venkatachaliah remarked the court will do its job and it was for the government to maintain law and order. Senior advocate K K Venugopal said it is the duty of the court to deliver the judgement irrespective of the consequences. "The reasons given by those seeking deferment is that the judgement will result in creating a law and order problem. Even after six months,the position will be the same. As one judge will be retiring,it will be the duty of the court to deliver its judgement," he said. Lawyer K T S Tulsi said even at this late stage,it was possible to work out an amicable solution. Former Law Minister and senior advocate Shanti Bhushan took strong exception to efforts made by "vested interests" to defer the judgement and said the High Court had done the "right thing". "The suit is pending for so many years. Why is anybody trying to delay it? It is unconscionable. Too many years have passed by. This had to be decided much earlier. Now that the date is fixed,why should anybody try to defer the judgement? I can't appreciate it. The High Court has done the right thing," Shanti Bhushan said. While agreeing with Venugopal,senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan said there cannot be further adjournments over the issue and the judgement will have to be delivered on time. "The Masjid judgement is long overdue. In any case,one of the judges retires at the end of the month. There can be no adjournment beyond that otherwise the whole issue has to be heard again. Court judgements have to be delivered on time," Dhavan said. "Courts are not to be threatened that judgements should not be delivered because they will give rise to chaos," he added. Earlier in the day,a 3-judge Special Bench of the High Court rejected the petition filed by one Ramesh Chandra Tripathi for deferring the judgement in order to work out an out-of-court amicable settlement. The court rejected the application on the ground that there was no merit in it. Tripathi,a defendent in the case,had filed the application to make another attempt to reach a solution to the dispute through reconciliation.
