Breaking| Krishna Janmabhoomi Dispute- Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Allahabad HC's Order Appointing Commissioner To Inspect The Mosque
|The Supreme Court today refused to stay the Allahabad High Court's order allowing the application for appointment of a Court Commissioner for the inspection of the Idgah Mosque complex in Mathura in the suit on the subject.
The Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti said that the matters were supposed to be listed on January 9. "The SLP is listed on 9th January. Let it come up for hearing on the said date when all issues and contentions raised will be considered", the Court ordered.
Appearing for the Masjid, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi submitted that the Supreme Court was informed earlier that the High Court is considering interlocutory application when the Supreme Court is seized of the matter.
"At this stage, we will not stay anything. If there is any adverse order, you can come here", Justice Khanna said. Ahmadi then informed the Court about yesterday's order. He submitted that yesterday's order is a final order, which was uploaded in the evening and hence could not be produced before the Supreme Court.
"Please tell the High Court that we are hearing the matter on the 9th", Justice Khanna said.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan along with Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain appeared for the plaintiff in the Suit and submitted that the High Court has refused to stay the proceedings, despite the Defendants asking for it.
"What is sub judice in the matter before the High Court is not before us. In case you want to challenge, please file an appeal", Justice Khanna said.
We have already told the High Court, Ahmadi submitted. Ahmadi also submitted that there is no vacation bench before the Apex Court and that the matter is listed before the High Court on 18th December for modalities of appointment of the Commissioner. He submitted that when the Apex Court is to hear the matter on the 9th, the High Court should not proceed with interlocutory applications. He then sought for liberty to mention the matter in the vacation.
We are not saying anything, in the first portion of the order, we have made it clear that the matter is coming up on the 9th and in case you have any grievance against any order, you can challenge it.
"Let the Commissioner not proceed", Ahmadi submitted. "That will amount to staying the order, without the order being before me", Justice Khanna replied. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to January 9.
Yesterday, the Allahabad High Court passed the impugned order, allowing the application filed by the deity (Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman) and seven others under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. The application was filed through Advocates Hari Shankar and Vishnu Shankar Jain.
The High Court also noted that the appointment of a commission, consisting of three advocates, would not harm either party. The report's effect on the merits of the case is clarified, and the court could issue directions to maintain the sanctity of the property during the commission's execution.
In the application filed in the pending suit before the High Court, it was asserted that the birthplace of Lord Sri Krishna is situated beneath the Mosque. The claim emphasized various indications supporting the assertion that the Mosque is, in fact, a Hindu temple.
It is noteworthy that while the issue of transferring the 18 pending petitions from the Mathura Court to the Allahabad High Court was listed on January 9, 2024, before the Apex Court, however, the side representing the Masjid urgently requested the listing of the matter challenging the Allahabad High Court's order appointing Court commissioners.
Background: In 1944, Raja Patnimal's heirs sold the land to Mahamana Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya, forming the Shree Krishna Janambhoomi Trust in 1951. The Trust became defunct in 1958, leading to the formation of 'Shri Krishna Janam Sthan Seva Sangh' in 1958. Legal disputes followed, including a dismissed suit by Muslims claiming preemption rights based on a compromise.
A 1967 suit sought to remove the Mosque's superstructure, resulting in a compromise in 1968. The plaintiffs contended that this compromise was illegal, void, and not binding on the deities and devotees.
Cause Title: Committee Of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah Vs. Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman [SLP(C) No. 014275 - / 2023]