The Allahabad High Court in the case Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman At Katra Keshav Dev Khewat No. 255 And 7 Others vs. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board And 3 Others observed and has directed to consolidate 15 suits which relates to Mathura’s Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute.
The court passed the said order in the interest of justice’ wherein the application was filed by the Hindu plaintiffs under Order IV-A of the Civil Procedure Code, CPC.
The court stated that all these suits contain a common prayer wherein it seeks for the removal of the Shahi Idgah mosque from the 13.37-acre complex which it shares with the Katra Keshav Dev temple in Mathura.
Therefore, the Additional prayers include seeking the possession of the Shahi Idgah premises and demolition of the present structure which is situated there.
The bench headed by Justice Mayank Jain in its order stated that the proceedings in these suits can be taken up and the suits may be decided simultaneously on the basis of common evidence and 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 counsel, Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, appearing on behalf of the Hindu plaintiffs argued before the court that after the original suit was filed before Civil Judge i.e., the Senior Division, Mathura on 25.09.2020, certain other suits have been filed of a similar nature concerning the 13.37 acre of Katra, Keshav Dev, and for the removal of the disputed structure.
The court in the case observed and took the stand of the Sunni Waqf Board, the Idgah mosque committee, and other defendants who submitted that they had no objection to the consolidation of suits.
The Allahabad High Court in the case observed and has allowed the plea seeking the appointment of a court commissioner to inspect the Idgah Mosque.
the counsel, Advocate Jain submitted that the composition and the modalities of 6 the commission are yet to be determined by the Court.
Further, he submitted before the court that pursuant to the order of the Court’s last month, he has applied that the commission may be headed by a retired High Court Judge and two advocates.
It was also prayed before the court that certain advocates on behalf of plaintiffs may also be permitted to participate in the proceedings of the commission.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that he seeks an urgent hearing on the composition and modalities of the commission, thus, the Court listed the matter to be heard on January 17 given the absence of advocates for the defendants.
Accordingly, the court listed the matter for further consideration on January 17, 2024.
