Hearing the Conflict between Krishna Janmabhoomi Mosque and Shahi EidgahThe Supreme Court today called on the parties to furnish a brief summary on the issue of maintaining an intra-judicial appeal against the rejection of a plea under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC before the High Court of ‘Allahabad.

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar dealt with the grievance of the Mosque Committee against the Allahabad High Court Judgment dated August 1, whereby his plea under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, challenging the maintainability of 18 suits preferred by the deity (Lord Krishna) and Hindu devotees, was dismissed.

As of the last date, the Court had asked the parties to consider whether section 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal Act, which provides for an intrajudicial appeal, is applicable to the matter. Justice Khanna also clarified that till the next date, the proceedings can continue, in the form of questions, documents and filing of affidavits. However, no cross-examination will take place.

Today, Lawyer Tasneem Ahmadi (appearing for the Mosque Committee) informed the Court that the Letters Patent Appeal Act has been repealed in Uttar Pradesh and as such the Allahabad High Court has no jurisdiction in matters of letters patent. She further submitted that the Allahabad High Court Rules permit intra-judicial appeals in certain cases, but there are also certain exceptions, for example, if the impugned order is passed in exercise of the monitoring.

Ahmadi asserted that the disputed order is an order passed in the superintendence. Justice Khanna, however, disagreed. “No, you are wrong. This is an initial proceeding before the (High Court)… it is not prima facie”the judge said.

Defending his position, Ahmadi said: “it is the superintendence power by which the matter was transferred to the Allahabad High Court under Section 24.” Justice Khanna, however, observed: “the rejection of a prayer under Order 7, Rule 11, is not an order of superintendency… if we apply the letters patent appeal, it would be a judgment”.

However, the judge asked Ahmadi to carefully read Rule 1, Chapter 15 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, which further refers to Rule 11, Chapter 11. Lawyer Vishnu Shankar Jain (for the Hindu side) also brought to the notice of the court Rule 5, Chapter 8, in response to which Justice Khanna said the matter would be looked into.

In particular, another petition contesting the Judgment of May 2023 whereby the Allahabad High Court transferred to itself all pending suits before the Mathura court (praying for various reliefs relating to the dispute), was also listed today before the same court. Lawyer Jain requested to hear the cases together, but the request was refused.

“No, we will hear them separately…the transfer order will be subject to (section) 136…”Justice Khanna said.

Background

The controversy is linked to Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb’s Shahi Eidgah Mosque in Mathura, which is believed to have been built after the demolition of a temple at the birthplace of Lord Krishna.

In 1968, a “compromise agreement” was negotiated between the Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan, which is the managing authority of the temple, and the Shahi Masjid Eidgah Trust, allowing both places of worship to operate simultaneously. However, the validity of this agreement is now in doubt with parties seeking various forms of relief in court against Krishna Janmabhoomi. The litigants’ argument is that the compromise agreement was entered into fraudulently and is invalid in law. Claiming a right to worship on the contested site, many of them are calling for the removal of the Shahi Eidgah mosque.

In May 2023, the Allahabad High Court transferred to himself all pending suits before the Mathura Court seeking various reliefs relating to the dispute.

“…If one considers the fact that up to 10 suits are said to be pending in the civil court and there are expected to be another 25 suits which could be considered pending and it can be said that the issue is of fundamental public importance, this has affected the masses beyond the tribes and communities having not progressed an inch since their institution on merits for two or three years, provides a complete justification for withdrawal of all proceedings relating to the matter in question in the civil court concerned before this Court under Article 24(1)(b) of the CPC.”

This transfer order was challenged in the Supreme Court by the mosque committee and then by the Sunni Central Waqf Board of Uttar Pradesh.

In December 2023, the High Court authorized a plea demanding the appointment of a court commissioner to inspect the Shahi Eidgah Mosque. The order was passed on the basis of an application for Writ 26 Rule 9 CPC filed by the deity (Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman) and 7 others. As part of a challenge brought by the Mosque Committee, the Supreme Court suspended the execution of the order in January 2024. Subsequently, this suspension was extended.

Case Title: Shahi Masjid Idgah Trust Management Committee v. Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman & Ors. | SLP(C) No. 20074-20088/2024