News UpdatesMathura District Court Admits Appeal Against Order Dismissing Suit Seeking Removal Of Idgah Mosque From Site Claimed As Krishna Janam Bhoomi Sparsh Upadhyay16 Oct 2020 5:09 AMShare This – xThe Mathura District Court on Friday (16th October) admitted the appeal filed against the order of Civil Judge, Mathura, dismissing the suit for removal of Masjid Idgah, allegedly built on the land of Shrikrishna Janam Bhoomi.The District Judge Sadhna Rani Thakur on Friday (16th October) has issued notices to Uttar Pradesh Sunni Waqf Board, Trust Masjid Idgah, Srikrishna Janamsthan Trust and…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Mathura District Court on Friday (16th October) admitted the appeal filed against the order of Civil Judge, Mathura, dismissing the suit for removal of Masjid Idgah, allegedly built on the land of Shrikrishna Janam Bhoomi.The District Judge Sadhna Rani Thakur on Friday (16th October) has issued notices to Uttar Pradesh Sunni Waqf Board, Trust Masjid Idgah, Srikrishna Janamsthan Trust and Sri Krishna Janam Bhoomi Seva Sangh. The Matter has now been posted for further hearing on Thursday (19th November).Background of the CaseEarlier, on Monday (12th October) the Mathura District Court had summoned all Court records with respect to the Shrikrishna Janam Bhoomi Case. Thereafter, the Court of District Judge had posted the matter for hearing on Friday (October 16, 2020) i.e., today.Notably, this civil appeal, which has now been admitted, was preferred by ‘Bhagwan Srikrishna Virjman’, through next friend Ranjana Agnihotri, ‘Shree Krishna Janmbhoomi’—the place of birth of Lord Shree Krishna and six devotees.The Appellants have submitted in the civil appeal that the Civil Judge was wrong in dismissing their suit inasmuch as they are worshippers of Lord Shri Krishna and they have the right to assert their right to religion guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution to have Darshan and perform puja at the actual birth of place of Lord Krishna which is at present beneath the structure illegally raised by Muslims.”It is the right and duty of the worshippers to make every endeavour to bring back the lost property of the deity and to take every step for the safety and proper management of the temple and the deities property,” it has been submitted in the Civil Appeal.Notably, the appeal avers that the Civil judge (in its 30th September order) mentioned that compromise had been entered into between Trust Masjid Idgah and Krishna Janamasthan Trust, whereas the Plaintiffs had clearly stated in the plaint that the compromise was made between Shri Krishna Janmsthan Sewa Sangh and Trust Masjid Idgah; and Shri Krishna Janmasthan Trust was not a party to the compromise and it had not filed the suit.Therefore, it has also been alleged in the civil appeal that the impugned judgment is stated to be based upon the wrong assumption of fact and suffering from non-application of mind.The appeal, which has now been admitted by the District Court, Mathura was filed through Advocates Hari Shankar Jain, Vishnu Shankar Jain & Pankaj Kumar Verma.Civil Judge’s Order delivered on 30th SeptemberThe Civil Court, while dismissing the suit, had observed that such type of suits is instituted through Shebait, however, the court had noted that the present suit had not been instituted through Shebait.The Court had noted that Shree Krishna is considered to be the Avtar of Lord Vishnu, and there are infinite number devotes of Shree Krishna in the whole world.Importantly, the Court had further opined that if each and every devotee is allowed to institute such suits, it would Jeopardize the Judicial and Social System.The Court had remarked that to allow the plaintiffs to institute the suit, on the basis of they being the devotees, isn’t Justified and is legally untenable and the institution of the suit by the devotees is not allowed in the eyes of Law.Noting the aforesaid, the Court had come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs in the present matter did not have the right to sue and so there was no base to register the case and hence it deserved dismissal.Averments in the appealDisputing this reasoning of the Court, the Appellants in their appeal have submitted that a suit cannot be rejected on the ground that several others may also approach the court.They pointed out that the Court below “failed to take notice of the provision of the order 1 rule 8 CPC and that the court in the appropriate case has the power to treat any suit as representative suit when the interest of numerous persons are involved.” (emphasis supplied)Significantly, the Civil Court had also remarked that the Appellants herein do not have a ‘Right to sue’.Challenging this finding, in the appeal it has been submitted,”The question regarding the right to sue cannot be decided in a summary manner. At the time of admission of suit the Court cannot decide the suit suo moto the question of the right to sue. Even the court below did not call upon the counsel for the plaintiffs to address on the point of locus standi.”Plaintiffs before the Court and The disputeThe first Petitioner, i.e. the deity himself was described as minor, juristic person who can sue and be sued through shebait and in his absence through next friend.The second plaintiff was ‘Shree Krishna Janmbhoomi’—the place of birth of Lord Shree Krishna, which as per the Plaintiffs has “special significance” in religious scriptures as well as under Hindu law.The other plaintiffs were the devotees.It was alleged that in 1968, the Society Shree Krishna Janamasthan Seva Sangh entered into a compromise with the Committee of Management of Trust Masjid Idgah, conceding a considerable portion of property belonging to the deity to the latter.Disputing the legality of this compromise, the Plaintiffs had submitted:”That it is relevant to mention that Shree Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sangh has no proprietary or ownership right in the property of Katra Keshavdev which stood vested in the deity and the Trust.”It was further contended:”The original karagar i.e. the birthplace of Lord Krishna lies beneath the construction raised by the Committee of Management i.e. Trust Masjid Idgah. The true fact will come out before the Court after excavation.” Next Story
Since National Cupcake Week was launched by British Baker earlier this year, we’ve found it hard to suppress our fawning over this inaugural celebration, filliped as we are by the gushing support we’ve received from bakers up and down the country. So just to show we’re not cupcake evangelists, Stop the Week is happy to address the positive imbalance and bring a dissenting voice in from the wilderness.In the spirit of charity, STW hopes to drive a bit of traffic in the direction of food blogger Le Carnet de Sophie, who posted an entry titled “Why I hate cupcakes” last week. “Which loony organisation or shadowy governmental body charged with the task of allocating food birthdays decided that cupcakes should be elevated to the sovereign-like status of a week-long celebration?” bellowed our affronted essayist. “Cupcakes are too big, there is far too much icing on them and they have usurped the already perfectly fine fairy cake.”Overlooking that it’s not actually a birthday, and skipping over our private delight at being hailed as shadowy conspirators, STW is as sad as anybody that the fairy cake didn’t put up more of a fight in the pub brawl of daintily decorated transatlantic fancies. If we could have stepped in with a well-aimed bar stool, we would have done. The fight was over well before we waded in.”Come the 14th September I plan to make something that is the antithesis of a cupcake,” she promises. “Something simple and economical, like a rock cake a cake so ugly there is no mention of it on the British Baker website. This John Merrick of cakes deserves more recognition.”Stop the Week would like to note that we are no stranger to any aspect of bakery creation ugly or otherwise. In sportsmanlike recognition, we doff our cap at Ms Sophie’s own (debatably ugly) Pear and Malteser crumble recipe. And she can rest assured the instant the rock cake revolution kicks off, we’ll be all over it.