New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday extended until November this year, its earlier order putting on hold a survey of the Shahi Eidgah mosque adjoining the Krishna Janmabhoomi Temple in Mathura, in Uttar Pradesh, by an advocate-commissioner.
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing the Hindu side, urged a bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar to consider listing their plea requesting vacating the stay over the survey. Jain, citing the order passed by the High Court on August 1, contended that the Muslim side's petition before the Supreme Court was ineffective. However, the bench said that it would be able to take up the matter for a hearing only in November.
Deferring the hearing, the bench said that the issue requires extensive arguments and a related order issued by the Allahabad High Court earlier this month would also have to be examined.
On August 1, the High Court said the trial in 18 suits relating to the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute could continue. The High Court had dismissed the challenge by the mosque management committee and scheduled the matter on August 12, for framing of the issues in the suit.
On January 16, the apex court had stayed the High Court’s order for the appointment of an advocate-commissioner to oversee the mosque survey. The apex court had noted that the Hindu side’s plea for the survey was "very vague". The apex court also seized of a challenge to an order passed by the High Court on May 26, where the High Court had transferred to itself nearly 18 suits filed by Hindu parties in civil courts in Mathura, claiming right over the mosque land.
The Eidgah committee and Uttar Pradesh Sunni Waqf Board challenged the matter before the Supreme Court. Later, it also assailed a subsequent order paving the way for a survey of the mosque premises. The mosque management committee has questioned the maintainability of the suits saying that they were filed after a prolonged delay and emphasised that the suit was barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
The committee also filed a separate plea before the High Court questioning the maintainability of the suits. The High Court on August 1, had held that the suits were maintainable.
Read More
