Bharat Express

Court Holds Hearing In Mathura’s Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Dispute

Ajay Pratap Singh, advocate for case number 7, mentioned that while the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) had filed a report, it had not yet been included in the case.

A hearing was recently held to address the ongoing civil suits related to the Shahi Idgah dispute. During the session, the mosque’s legal representatives requested additional time to file a written statement (counter affidavit), a move that was strongly opposed by the temple’s legal team. The temple’s advocate, Satyabir Singh, argued that the deadline for filing the reply had already passed, noting that such statements should typically be filed within 90 days. Despite this, the mosque side had only filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) without submitting a written response to the civil suits, leading the temple side to suggest that the mosque was merely trying to delay the proceedings.

In one of the cases, Ashutosh Pandey, President of the Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi Mukti Nirman Trust, submitted a list of witnesses and evidence through an affidavit. The witness list includes prominent figures such as Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Ji, Acharya Dhirendra Krishna Shastri Ji Bageshwar Dham, Praveen Bhai Togadia, Acharya Mahamandaleshwar Kailashnand Giri Ji Maharaj, and Parmanand Giri Ji Maharaj, a permanent member of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Tirth Kshetra.

Mahendra Pratap Singh, the plaintiff and advocate in case number 13, pointed out that the mosque side had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court challenging the maintainability of the case. However, he noted that no stay had been issued by the Supreme Court on the ongoing hearings. Consequently, he argued that the issue should be resolved promptly, allowing the court proceedings to continue.

Also read: Rahul Gandhi Reports Rs 46.49 Lakh Profit From Stock Investments Amid Stock Market Boom

Ajay Pratap Singh, advocate for case number 7, mentioned that while the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) had filed a report, it had not yet been included in the case.

The mosque’s defense was presented by senior advocate Tasneem Ahmadi. The hearing is being presided over by Justice Mayank Kumar Jain of the Allahabad High Court, who is overseeing 18 civil suits related to the dispute.



To read more such news, download Bharat Express news apps