New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday (April 28) said the order passed by the Allahabad High Court allowing a plea by the Hindu side to amend their plaint and impleading Centre and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute at Mathura is prima facie not wrong.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing an appeal filed by the Committee of Management, Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah, Mathura against the High Court order allowing Hindu side’s plea to amend their plaint and implead Centre and ASI.
Prima facie, there was nothing wrong in allowing amendment of plaint, apex court observed
The bench observed that there was nothing wrong prima facie in allowing the amendment of the plaint and replies to the amended plaint could be filed.
The top court, however, deferred hearing on the matter and tagged the plea with other pending cases relating to the dispute.
High Court in March allowed amendments to two lawsuits
The High Court on March 5, 2025 allowed amendments to two lawsuits and permitted petitioners to make the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and ASI as respondents.
The mosque committee said the amendment allowed by the High Court fundamentally altered the nature of the original suit filed by the Hindu side and the order permitting the amendment in the plaint undermined its defense already on record and effectively allowed the Hindu side plaintiffs to set up a new case.
Provisions of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act applicable to disputed property: Hindu side
The Hindu side said in its amendment application that the property involved in the lawsuit has been included in the list of centrally protected monuments under the provisions of The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 in the list of Agra circle published by the ASI and the provisions of the said Act are applicable to the property in question.
The Hindu side further said that the property in question was declared as protected monument and at present the same is a centrally protected monument therefore it is necessary to place on record such facts by amending the plaint for proper adjudication of the case as the property in question is a centrally protected monument and the same is under the supervision and management of ASI.
What did the High Court say?
“Neither nature of suit in case of change nor a new cause of action is being introduced or any new relief is prayed for in proposed amendment. On allowing amendment application, interest of defendant can be said to be affected in such manner that can not be compensated by costs. The proposed amendment is necessary for effective adjudication of real controversy in the matter and also to avoid multiplicity of suit. Thus, prayer for amendment in the plaint is liable to be allowed on payment of Rs. 5,000 payable to defendant no. 1, main contesting defendant,” the High Court said while allowing Hindu side’s amendment application.
