Krishna Janmabhoomi Dispute : Supreme Court To Examine If Intra-Court Appeal Is Maintainable In Allahabad HC Against Rejection Of O7R11 Plea

On hearing the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute, the Supreme Court today called on the parties to furnish brief synopsis on the question of maintainability of an intra-court appeal against rejection of an Order 7 Rule 11 CPC plea before the Allahabad High Court.

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

On the last date, the Court had asked the parties to examine if Section 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal Act, providing for intra-court appeal, is applicable to the case. Justice Khanna also clarified that till the next date, proceedings can continue in the suit, in the form of issues, documents and filing of affidavits. However, no cross-examination shall take place.

Today, Advocate Tasneem Ahmadi (appearing for the Mosque Committee) apprised the Court that the Letters Patent Appeal Act has been repealed in Uttar Pradesh, and as such, the Allahabad High Court does not have letters patent jurisdiction. She further submitted that the Allahabad High Court Rules allow intra-court appeal in certain cases but there are also certain exceptions, for instance, if the order challenged is passed in the exercise of superintendence.

Ahmadi asserted that the impugned order is an order passed in superintendence. Justice Khanna, though, disagreed. "No, you are wrong. It is an original proceeding before the [High Court]...it is not prima facie", the judge said.

Defending her stance, Ahmadi stated, "it was the power of superintendence by which the suit was transferred to the Allahabad High Court under Section 24". Justice Khanna, however, observed: "rejection of a prayer under Order 7 Rule 11 is not an order of superintendence...if we apply letters patent appeal, it would be a judgment".

Although, the judge asked Ahmadi to peruse Rule 1, Chapter 15 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, which further refers to Rule 11, Chapter 11. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain (for the Hindu side) also brought to the court's notice Rule 5, Chapter 8, in response to which Justice Khanna said that the issue will be examined.

Notably, another petition, challenging the May 2023 judgment whereby the Allahabad High Court transferred to itself all suits pending before the Mathura Court (praying for various reliefs pertaining to the dispute), was also listed today before the same bench. A request was made by Advocate Jain to hear the matters together, but the same was denied.

"No, we will hear them separately...transfer order will be amenable to [Article] 136...", said Justice Khanna.

Background

The controversy is related to Mughal emperor Aurangzeb-era Shahi Eidgah mosque at Mathura, which is alleged to have been built after demolishing a temple at the birthplace of Lord Krishna.

In 1968, a 'compromise agreement' was brokered between the Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan, which is the temple management authority, and the Trust Shahi Masjid Eidgah allowing both places of worship to operate simultaneously. However, the validity of this agreement has now been doubted by parties seeking various forms of relief in courts with respect to Krishna Janmabhoomi. The litigants' contention is that the compromise agreement was made fraudulently and is invalid in law. Claiming a right to worship at the disputed site, many of them have sought the Shahi Eidgah mosque's removal.

In May, 2023, the Allahabad High Court transferred to itself all suits pending before the Mathura Court praying for various reliefs pertaining to the dispute.

"...Looking to the fact that as many as 10 suits are stated to be pending before the civil court and also there 25 should be more suits that can be said to be pending and issue can be said to be seminal public importance affected the masses beyond tribe and beyond communities having not proceeded an inch further since their institution on merits for past two to three years, provides full justification for withdrawal of all the suits touching upon the issue involved in the suit from the civil court concerned to this Court under Section 24(1)(b) CPC."

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

In December, 2023, the High Court allowed a plea seeking the appointment of a court commissioner to inspect the Shahi Eidgah Mosque. The order was passed on an Order 26 Rule 9 CPC application filed by the deity (Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman) and 7 others. In a challenge brought by the Mosque Committee, the Supreme Court stayed the implementation of the order in January, 2024. Subsequently, this stay was extended.

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