Krishna Janmabhoomi Case| 'Decide Suit Without Being Influenced By District Judge's Observations On Merits Of Case': Allahabad HC To Mathura Court

The Allahabad High Court today directed a Court in Mathura to decide the suit pertaining to the Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah land dispute, pending before it, without being influenced by the observations made by the Mathura District Judge on the merits/contentious issues of the case in its 19 May 2022 order.

Significantly, this order of the Allahabad High Court has paved the way for the resumption of the hearing of the suit before the Mathura Court seeking the removal of the Shahi Eidgah (mosque), located adjacent to the Shri Krishna temple complex in Mathura, and the transfer of 13.37-acre land to the deity-Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman.

"...both the petitions are disposed of by remanding the matter back to the Trial Court with directions to adjudicate the Civil Suit no. 353 of 2022 after following due procedure as per law without being influenced by any observation or findings of the District Judge vide impugned order dated 19.05.2022. All the parties are free to raise all their contentions before the trial Court," the bench of Justice Pradia said.

The HC earlier stayed the suit proceedings in August 2022 after the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board moved the HC, challenging the 19th May order of the District Judge of Mathura court which held that the suit to remove the Shahi Idgah Masjid, allegedly built on the land of Shrikrishna Janam Bhoomi was maintainable.

Though the bench of Justice Pradia today refused to set aside the 19th May order of the District Judge, the bench however said that the District Judge should not have decided/made remarks on the contentious issues/merits involved in the suit.

For context, the District Judge had, while holding the suit to be maintainable in the revision plea, inter alia, made several observations regarding the merits of the case including that the provisions of The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 are not applicable to the suit. 

In fact, the District Judge had reasoned that the agreement in challenge resulted in a compromise decree, which was drawn before the commencement of the Act of 1991 and since, the same is the subject matter of challenge in the suit moved by the petitioner, therefore, by virtue of section 4 (3)(b) of 1991 Act, the act shall not be applicable on this dispute.

To understand how the case reached the District Judge's court forming an occasion for it to make remarks on the merits of the case, we have to understand the background of the case. The same is explained below.

The background of the case

A suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) had been filed in September 2020 on behalf of the deity Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman seeking the removal of the Shahi Eidgah (mosque) and the transfer of 13.37-acre land to the deity.

The Petitioners/Revisionists Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman, Asthan Shrikrishna Janam Bhoomi through Next Friend Ranjana Agnihotri further sought cancellation of a compromise decree of 1974 by saying that the agreement between Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan and Shahi Idgah Trust in the year 1973, on the basis of which an earlier suit filed in 1964 was compromised, was fraudulent.

It was stated that in the agreement concerned, the Sansthan had conceded the property of Deity/Trust in favour of Trust Masjid Idgah. In the 2020 suit, the plaintiffs challenged that very agreement and compromise decree of 1974 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division).

However, the Civil Judge (Senior Division) did not register the suit as a civil suit and in turn, registered the case as a Miscellaneous case on the ground that the Plaintiff Nos. 3 to 8 are not residents of Mathura whereas the property in question is situated in District Mathura.

Further, on September 30, 2020, it refused to admit the suit and in fact it rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that the Plaintiffs, being the devotees/worshippers of Lord Krishna, have no right to file the suit.

Now, this order was challenged in appeal by the petitioners before the District & Sessions Judge Mathura. Hearing the appeal, the DJ's Court first directed the appeal to be registered as a revision plea and later on, it allowed the said revision plea on May 19 and directed the Trial court to hear both parties and to pass the appropriate order taking into account its Judgment.

Subsequently, the case came to be listed before the Trial Court on May 26, 2022, when the Civil suit was registered as Original Suit No. 353 of 2022 and summons were issued by the trial court fixing July 1, 2022, for filing the Written Statements and framing of issues, however, since the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board challenged the District Judge's order by way of instant plea under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the HC stayed further proceedings before the trial court in August 2022.

The Court further said that the Civil Judge (S.D.), had not even exercised its powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and had rejected the plaint duly presented by treating it as a Miscellaneous Case, and the same was a manifest error of law as the suit was first registered a Miscellaneous case and then it was heard it on the question of maintainability.

Regarding the appeal moved before the District Judge, the Court said that the same was rightly ordered to be registered as a revision plea by the DJ's Court, the bench however said that the DJ's court could not have decided on the issues pertaining to the merits of the case.

"The District Judge framed many points on the basis of the arguments raised on behalf of the Defendants, as recorded in the impugned judgment. These questions were not needed to be decided as the Defendant had right to file its Written Statement, deny the facts and law therein, and the Court under Order 14 Rule 1 CPC was then to frame issues and after issues were framed, parties are entitled to lead evidence. In absence of framing of issues and permitting parties to lead evidence, matter could not have been decided. It was however, open to decide the question of preliminary issues, but as to what will be the preliminary issues will also have to be decided under Order XIV Rule 2(ii) CPC being jurisdiction of the court and bar created by any law. Entire procedure laid down in law has been by-passed and findings on the merits of the case have been given which is not permissible in law," the Court said,

With this, the Court held that the questions regarding the maintainability of a regular civil suit and its merits has to be decided by the Trial Court (where the suit is instituted) and hence, the Court added, without following the due procedure as per the Code, the contentious questions were not required to be decided by the District Judge in a Revision Petition.

Consequently, the Court disposed of the plea by directing the trial court to decide the suit, which has been registered as suit no. 353 of 2022 without being influenced by the decision of the District judge. Noting  Summons have already been issued by the trial court on 26.05.2022 for filing the respective Written Statements and framing of issues.

Appearances

Senior Counsel W.H. Khan along with Senior Counsel S.F.A., Naqvi assisted by Advocates Punit Kumar Gupta, Poorva Agarwal and Nasiruzzaman for the petitioner.

Senior Counsel/Additional Advocate General of State of U.P. Garima Prasadh, along with Advocates Priyanka Swami, Ritu Bhardawaj, Pooja Agarwal, Prabhash Pandey and Pradeep Sharma on behalf of 1 of 10 contesting respondents namely respondent nos. 1 to 8,

Advocate Kamlesh Narayan Pandey appeared on behalf of respondent no.10 namely Sri Krishna Janam Bhumi Trust, Mathura, Through the Managing Director.

Advocate Birendra Prasad Maurya appeared on behalf of respondent no.11 namely Sri Krishna Janam Asthan Sewa Sansthan, Through its Secretary

Case title - U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board vs. Bhagwan Sri Krishna Virajman And 10 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5967 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 141

Click Here To Read/Download Order