The Allahabad High Court recently passed a direction to consolidate fifteen suits concerning the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute [Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman at Katra Keshav Dev Khewat & 7 Ors v UP Sunni Central Waqf Board & 3 Ors].
Justice Mayank Kumar Jain passed the order after an application was filed by a Hindu party (plaintiff) under Order IV-A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
“Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in the interest of justice 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 ( referred in the table above) are consolidated,” the Court directed.
The legal actions aim to have the Mathura Shahi Idgah Masjid removed, asserting that it was constructed on the land recognized as Krishna Janmabhoomi.
Initially, these cases were awaiting resolution in a civil court in Mathura. However, in May 2023, the High Court took over jurisdiction of these cases.
Following this transfer, a Hindu plaintiff approached the High Court, urging the consolidation of all the cases.
According to the plaintiff’s counsel, the proceedings initially commenced before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Mathura on September 25, 2020, before being transferred to the High Court.
Following that, additional lawsuits with similar claims, related to the 13.37-acre Katra Keshav Dev land and the removal of the contested structure, were subsequently filed. Altogether, there are currently eighteen unresolved lawsuits awaiting trial in the High Court, as mentioned by the counsel.
The request was made to consolidate the seventeen other ongoing cases with the plaintiffs’ suit.
The argument presented emphasized that consolidating the suits could save both the Court’s time and the parties’ expenses, while also preventing the possibility of conflicting judgments.
Considering these factors, the Court issued a directive to consolidate fifteen out of the eighteen mentioned suits. This consolidation allows for a joint examination of the proceedings and a simultaneous decision based on shared evidence. In its order dated January 11, the Court expressed that consolidating the suits is deemed expedient in the interest of justice, aiming to save time, expenses, and avoid conflicting judgments.
Of the remaining three suits, the Court said that the question of whether two such suits should also be consolidated could be decided at a later stage.
“So far as the Suit No. 10 of 2023 is concerned an application for restoration of the suit is pending … Since, in Original Suit No. 17 of 2023, an application under Order I Rule 8 read with Section 151 C.P.C. is pending for disposal, therefore, the issue of consolidation of this suit with another suits will also be taken into consideration later on,” the Court explained.
The remaining one suit was filed against the Union of India (and not private defendants), the Court further noted.
Notably, the counsel for the plaintiff also recounted 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 prayed that certain advocates on behalf of plaintiffs may also be permitted to participate in the proceedings of the commission.
Certain other concerns over damage to walls and gates on the property owned by the plaintiffs were also raised.
The matter will be heard next on January 17.
