Allahabad High Court upholds order to club 15 suits in Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute

The original suits seek the removal of the Mathura Shahi Idgah Masjid on the ground that that it was built over Krishna Janmabhoomi land.

Krishna Janmabhoomi - Shahi Idgah Dispute

Published on:

23 Oct 2024, 1:19 pm

2 min read

The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday refused to recall its January 11 direction to consolidate fifteen suits concerning the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute [Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman at Katra Keshav Dev Khewat & 7 Ors v. UP Sunni Central Waqf Board & 3 Ors].

Justice Mayank Kumar Jain passed the order today after reserving the verdict in the recall application on October 16.

Justice Mayank Kumar Jain

Back in January, the High Court had passed a direction directing consolidation of the fifteen suits after an application was filed by a Hindu party (plaintiff) under Order IV-A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

"Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in the interest of justice Original Suit Nos. 1/23, 2/23, 4/23, 5/23, 6/23, 7/23, 8/23, 9/23, 11/23, 12/23, 13/23, 14/23, 15/23, 16/23 and 18/23 ( referred in the table above) are consolidated," the Court had said in its January 11 order.

The original suits have sought the removal of the Mathura Shahi Idgah Masjid on the ground that it was built over Krishna Janmabhoomi land.

The suits were earlier pending before a civil court at Mathura. However, in May 2023, the High Court transferred these suits to itself.

A Hindu plaintiff had then moved the High Court with a plea to consolidate all the suits.

The plaintiff's counsel had contended that the matter was initially before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Mathura on September 25, 2020 before they were transferred to the High Court. Subsequently, additional suits of similar nature, involving the 13.37-acre land of Katra Keshav Dev and the removal of the disputed structure, were filed.

Taking into consideration the above facts, the Court directed that fifteen of the eighteen suits mentioned by the plaintiff be consolidated so that they could be heard together.

"These suits are of similar nature. The proceedings in these suits can be taken up and the suits may be decided simultaneously on the basis of common evidence. 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 Court had held.

Of the remaining three suits, the Court said that the question of whether two such suits should also be consolidated could be decided at a later stage.