Hearing in the matter of Krishna janmbhumi and Shahi Eidgah dispute at Mathura will continue on Thursday (May 16) before the Allahabad High court .
The matter is being heard by Justice Mayank Kumar Jain on applications filed under order 7 rule 11 of civil procedure code (CPC) moved by Muslim side challenging the maintainability of suits .
Today (on Wednesday), while appearing on behalf of Muslim side (management committee of Eidgah), Tasneem Ahmadi, through video conferencing submitted before the court that suit is barred by limitation. As per her parties had entered in compromise on October 12, 1968 and said compromise has been confirmed in a civil suit decided in 1974. The limitation to challenge a compromise is three years but suit has been filed in 2020 and thus present suit is barred by limitation . She further submitted that suit has been filed for possession after removal of structure of Shahi Eidgah as well as for restoration of temple and for permanent injunction. The prayer in the suit itself shows the structure of the Edgah is there and the committee of management is in possession of the same.
On Wednesday, Afzal Ahmad, the counsel appearing on behalf of UP Sunni Central Waqf Board also filed objections to the suits of Hindu side.
However, from Hindu side, on the point of maintainability of suit, it was submitted that suit property belongs to diety – Katra Keshav Deo for the last more than one thousand years. In the 16th century the birth place of Lord Krishna was demolished and a ‘Chabutara’ was constructed as Eidgah. The alleged compromise made in 1968 and decree of court is nothing but a fraud played by Sunny Central Waqf Board and Intezamia committee and thus question of limitation will not apply. It was further submitted that in compromise entered on October 12,1968, the deity was not a party nor a party in court decree passed in 1974. It was said that alleged compromise was entered by Sri Janm Sewa Sansthan, which was not empowered to enter into any compromise. The object of the Sansthan was only to manage day to day activities and had no right to enter into such compromise.
It was argued that the suit is maintainable the plea regarding non-maintainability can only be decided after leading evidences. Therefore, the application moved by Muslim side under order 7 rule 11 of civil procedure code, raising question on maintainability of the suit is liable to be rejected.
========================
