Allahabad High Court: In a transfer application, wherein the issue involved in the suit for adjudication relates to Shri Krishna Janmbhoomi and the plaintiffs are claiming right to worship and removal of the present Shahi Eidgah Masjid, Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J. transferred to itself all the pending suits before the Mathura Court. Further, directed the District Judge, Mathura to prepare a list of all such cases of similar nature involving the subject matter and touching upon its periphery, expressly or by implication include particulars of such cases and to forward the same to this Court within two weeks.
The Court also requested the Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court to nominate an appropriate Bench for trial and disposal of such suits.
The petitioner submitted that the matter involved, has historical background and it involves interest and sentiments of public at large, requires interpretation of various statutes, laws, Acts and Articles of the Constitution of India. The matter is highly sensitive and inter-alia relates to belief and faith of crores of devotees of Lord Krishna. The matter is of national importance and substantial questions of law involved in the suit. In fact, the complicated questions of law concerning a large section of society having its impact on the entire nation are required to be decided by the highest court of the State.
Further, it was submitted that the gravity of the issue involved and the large and wide background of the case has been tried to be equated with the case of the Ram Janam Bhoomi pertaining to Ayodhya, and specific plea has been raised that the High Court ordered to transfer all suits pertaining to Ayodhya dispute consequent upon which, the suits were tried by the High Court and decided vide judgment and order dated 30-09-2010. It further claimed that an appeal was preferred against the aforesaid order and the matter was finally adjudicated upon by the five Judges Bench of the Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 09-11-2019.
The Court noted that a specific plea was raised, that if the suit is decided by the Trial Court itself, it will take a long time. However, the matter needs to be decided expeditiously to save the time of the parties and to serve the interest of justice.
On parties submission that the Ram Janmbhoomi case was not transferred, for the reason of the importance in issue but was made because the suit was already pending before the subordinate court for 40 years, the Court said that it was on account of religious sentiments, general of tensions between two communities and to preserve amity brotherly relations, the application was moved and not on account of fact that the matter was not decided for 40 years.
On respondents’ argument regarding the inconvenience caused to the witnesses coming to Prayagraj from Mathura to get their statement recorded before the court concerned, the Court while remarking that this argument is ill-founded, said that Order 18 Rule 4 CPC provides for recording evidence, and it is for the Court to record evidence either itself or by commissioner appointed by it. With the advancement of the technology and impetus being provided to e-judiciary, physical presence of the witnesses can be done in the manner and mode as per discretion available with this Court trying the suit and it can be recorded through audio – video link.
The Court also took note of Articles 25, 26 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Further, it said that 10 suits are stated to be pending before the Civil Court and there can be more pending suits. This issue can be said to be of seminal public importance affecting the masses beyond tribe and beyond communities, these suits have not proceeded an inch further since their institution on merits for the past two to three years. This provides full justification for withdrawal of all the suits from the Civil court to this Court under Section 24(1)(b) CPC. Further, allowed the prayer of the applicant to withdraw the original suit and transfer it to this Court. The Court also withdrawn rest of the suits of a similar nature from the Civil Court and transferred them to this Court exercising its suo motu powers for trial.
[Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman v U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, 2023 SCC OnLine All 204, Order dated 26-05-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Applicant: Advocate Prabhash Pandey, Advocate Pradeep Kumar Sharma;
Counsel for Opposite Party: Advocate Punit Kumar Gupta, Advocate Birendra Prasad Maurya, Advocate Devid Kumar Singh, Advocate Kamlesh Narayan Pandey, Advocate Nasiruzzaman, Advocate Prateek Rai, Advocate Radheshyam Yadav, Advocate Varun Singh.
