The Supreme Court on Monday observed that prima facie there was nothing wrong with an Allahabad High Court order allowing Hindu litigants to implead the Centre and the Archaeological Survey of India in the Mathura Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute.
The high court had on March 5 allowed amendments to two lawsuits and permitted the petitioners to make the Union home ministry and the ASI respondents.
“We think your plea (challenging the maintainability) is wrong. Under Order VI Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC (Code of Civil Procedure), the high court can allow the amendments. One thing is clear. The amendment to the original plaints of the Hindu plaintiffs has to be allowed under the CPC,” a bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar told the counsel appearing for the mosque committee.
The bench, however, deferred the hearing due to paucity of time.
The apex court’s oral observation comes as a big boost to the Hindu claimants who wanted to include the ASI as a defendant because they argued that their demand for the restoration of Krishna Janmabhoomi was not barred by the 1991 Places of Worship Act.
The Places of Worship Act mandates the preservation of the religious character of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947. However, the Hindu claimants insist that the Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi Sthal was an ancient protected monument and therefore the dispute should be adjudicated on the basis of the Ancient Monuments Act, 1904.
At the last hearing on April 4, the bench had agreed to examine the plea of the mosque committee challenging the high court order allowing the Hindu claimants to implead the Centre and the ASI as parties to the case.
While issuing notice on the mosque committe’s plea, the apex court had orally observed that both the high court and the plaintiffs (Hindu claimants) could amend their pleas and that the high court/civil court could direct any party to be joined as a plaintiff or defendant in a suit under Order 10, Rule 2 of the CPC.
“When you take the defence relying upon a particular Act (Places of Worship), then they (Hindu groups) are entitled to amend the plaint or replication, that the Places of Worship Act will not apply,” CJI Sanjiv Khanna had remarked.