Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday (May 6) adjourned till May 23 the hearing in the Krishna Janmbhumi-Shahi Idgah dispute at Mathura after the Muslim side sought more time to file replies.
Justice Ram Manohar Narain Mishra fixed May 23, 2025 for the next hearing into the matter after the Muslim time sought more time from the court to file additional counter-affidavits against the amended plaint in case numbers 1 and 16.
The Muslim side also submitted before the court that it has filed an appeal before the Supreme Court and therefore, the hearing into the matter should be put off.
The submission of the Muslim side was opposed by the Hindu side, news agency PTI reported
Hindu side has filed 18 suits in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah masjid dispute
The Hindu side has filed 18 suits in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah masjid dispute seeking possession of land after removal of the Shahi Idgah Masjid and restoration of temple.
High Court allowed amendments to two lawsuits on March 5
The High Court allowed amendments to two lawsuits on March 5 and permitted Hindu litigants to make the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) as respondents.
Muslim side approached apex court against High Court order
The mosque committee, aggrieved by the High Court order, approached the Supreme Court. It has said that the amendment allowed by the High Court fundamentally altered the nature of the original suit filed by the Hindu side and the High Court 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.
HC allowing Hindu side to amend plea prima facie not wrong, apex court recently observed
The apex court, while hearing the appeal of the Muslim side recently, said the High Court order allowing the Hindu plaintiffs to amend their plaint and impleading Centre and ASI is prima facie not wrong.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv khanna observed that prima facie, there was nothing wrong in allowing the amendment of the plaint and replies to the amended plaint could be filed.
The apex court, however, deferred hearing on the appeal and tagged it with other pending cases relating to the dispute.
