Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a petition challenging the maintainability of the cases filed in connection with the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Masjid dispute in Mathura.
Several lawsuits have been filed seeking "removal" of the Shahi Idgah Mosque located adjacent to the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple, with the plaintiffs claiming that the Aurangzeb-era mosque was built after the demolition of the temple.
The Mosque Management Committee has challenged these cases in its petition.
The Muslim parties – the Mosque Management Committee and the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board – have argued that the suits are barred under the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
According to the Muslim side, the suit itself accepts the fact that the mosque in question was constructed in 1669-70.The suits filed by the Hindu side include a common prayer seeking "removal" of the Shahi Idgah Mosque from the 13.37-acre complex shared with the Katra Keshav Dev Temple in Mathura. Additional prayers include a demand to capture the Shahi Eidgah complex.
On May 31, the High Court had reserved its decision after hearing both the Hindu side (plaintiff) and the Muslim side (defendant) in detail. However, the court resumed the hearing following a request by Shahi Eidgah's lawyer Mahmood Pracha.
On Thursday, appearing for the mosque, Pracha said that the arguments on the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) on behalf of the respondent - the Muslim party - have been closed by Taslima Aziz Ahmadi and therefore The hearing on the application has been completed.Pracha's second argument was that her right to be an audience should be protected and further court proceedings should also be videographed.
His third argument was that since the subject matter of the suit is between the plaintiff and the defendant, there is no provision that the court can appoint any person or lawyer as amicus curiae.
The court accepted Pracha's first request and reserved its decision on the issue of maintainability of the cases.
However, with regard to the other two requests, the court said that both these issues would be considered after the order on the maintainability of the case is pronounced.
The High Court has appointed senior advocate Manish Goyal as amicus curiae in this case.The Hindu plaintiff had also argued that no property in the name of Shahi Idgah was in the government records and had been illegally occupied.
Several lawsuits have been filed seeking "removal" of the Shahi Idgah Mosque located adjacent to the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple, with the plaintiffs claiming that the Aurangzeb-era mosque was built after the demolition of the temple.
The Mosque Management Committee has challenged these cases in its petition.
The Muslim parties – the Mosque Management Committee and the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board – have argued that the suits are barred under the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
According to the Muslim side, the suit itself accepts the fact that the mosque in question was constructed in 1669-70.The suits filed by the Hindu side include a common prayer seeking "removal" of the Shahi Idgah Mosque from the 13.37-acre complex shared with the Katra Keshav Dev Temple in Mathura. Additional prayers include a demand to capture the Shahi Eidgah complex.
On May 31, the High Court had reserved its decision after hearing both the Hindu side (plaintiff) and the Muslim side (defendant) in detail. However, the court resumed the hearing following a request by Shahi Eidgah's lawyer Mahmood Pracha.
On Thursday, appearing for the mosque, Pracha said that the arguments on the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) on behalf of the respondent - the Muslim party - have been closed by Taslima Aziz Ahmadi and therefore The hearing on the application has been completed.Pracha's second argument was that her right to be an audience should be protected and further court proceedings should also be videographed.
His third argument was that since the subject matter of the suit is between the plaintiff and the defendant, there is no provision that the court can appoint any person or lawyer as amicus curiae.
The court accepted Pracha's first request and reserved its decision on the issue of maintainability of the cases.
However, with regard to the other two requests, the court said that both these issues would be considered after the order on the maintainability of the case is pronounced.
The High Court has appointed senior advocate Manish Goyal as amicus curiae in this case.The Hindu plaintiff had also argued that no property in the name of Shahi Idgah was in the government records and had been illegally occupied.
