The Allahabad High Court has consolidated 15 petitions, including those seeking removal of the Mathura Shahi Idgah Masjid on the ground that it was built over the Krishna Janmabhoomi land.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain passed the order on Thursday on an application filed by a Hindu party (plaintiff) under Order IV-A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
After considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, the High Court consolidated the Original Suit Nos. 1/23, 2/23, 4/23, 5/23, 6/23, 7/23, 8/23, 9/23, 11/23, 12/23, 13/23, 14/23, 15/23, 16/23 and 18/23, in the interest of justice.
Earlier in May 2023, the High Court had transferred these suits, which were pending before a civil court at Mathura, to itself.
A Hindu plaintiff then moved the High Court seeking consolidation of all the suits.
The counsel for the plaintiff contended that the matter was initially before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Mathura on September 25, 2020 before being transferred to the High Court.
The counsel contended that additional suits of similar nature, involving the 13.37-acre land of Katra Keshav Dev and the removal of the disputed structure, were subsequently filed before the High Court, taking the total number of pending suits to 18.
The counsel prayed that 17 other suits pending before the High Court be consolidated with the suit of the plaintiff on the grounds that it would save the time of the Court as well the expenses of the parties and would avoid the possibility of conflicting judgments.
Justice Jain noted that since the suits were of similar nature, the proceedings in these suits can be taken up simultaneously and the suits may be decided simultaneously on the basis of common evidence.
Regarding the remaining three suits, the High Court said the question of whether the remaining two such suits should also be consolidated could be decided at a later stage.
It said an application for restoration of Suit No. 10 of 2023 was pending. Since, in Original Suit No. 17 of 2023, an application under Order I Rule 8 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was pending for disposal, therefore, the issue of consolidation of this suit with another suits could be decided at a later stage.
The single-judge Bench noted that the remaining one suit was filed against the Union of India (and not private defendants) and listed the matter for further hearing on January 17.
The counsel for the plaintiff contended that in December 2023, the High Court had allowed the application to appoint a panel of three advocates as commissioners for inspection of the disputed property.
He sought permission for certain advocates appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs, to participate in the proceedings of the commission.
The counsel further raised other concerns over damage to walls and gates on the property owned by the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs (Hindu side) were represented by Advocates Vishnu Jain, Devki Nandan Sharma, Prabhash Pandey and Pradeep Kumar Sharma.
Advocates Nasiruzzaman, Gulrez Khan, Hare Ram, Nasiruzzaman and Punit Kumar Gupta appeared for the defendants (Muslim side).