New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday said it will hear on December 9 a plea filed by the Masjid Committee against the Allahabad High Court order rejecting the Muslim side plea challenging the maintainability of 18 cases filed by the Hindu side related to the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute in Mathura.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said that the court will hear the matter at length as it has to decide what is the legal position.
We will hear at length: Apex Court
“This we will hear at length. We will take up the matter on December 9, at 2 pm… We have to decide what is the legal position,” CJI Khanna said.
CJI Khanna further said that he prima facie felt that an intra-court appeal would lie against the August 1 order of the single judge bench of the high court.
“We will certainly give you an opportunity to argue,” the bench said.
Apex Court earlier asked Muslim side to apprise it whether appeal lies before HC
The apex court had earlier asked the Muslim side to apprise it whether the appeal against the single bench order dismissing its plea challenging the maintainability of 18 suits filed by the Hindu side lie before the division bench.
What did the High Court say?
The single bench of the High Court rejected the submissions made by the Muslim side that Hindu side’s plea was barred under the Places of Worship Act, Wakf Act, Limitation Act and Specific Relief Act. It had said that the suits filed by the Hindu side “do not appear to be barred by any provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995; the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991; the Specific Relief Act, 1963; the Limitation Act, 1963 and Order XIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908”.
Disputed place in Mathura is either a temple or a mosque: High Court
The single bench of the High Court had further said, while dismissing the Muslim side plea, that the Places of Worship Act did not define the term “religious character” and the disputed place in Mathura is either a temple or a mosque, as it cannot have a dual religious character of a temple and a mosque at the same time.
“Either the place is a temple or a mosque. Thus, I find that the religious character of the disputed place as it existed on August 15, 1947 is to be determined by documentary as well as oral evidence led by both the parties,” single bench of Justice Justice Mayank Kumar Jain had said.
