Daily News and Views
Lucknow: Following is the legal summary of Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi dispute from December 1949 to August 2010 when the Lucknow bench of High Court had pronounced verdict trifurcating 2.77 acre land among Sunni Waqf Board, Ram Lalla and Nirmohi Akhara. Thereafter all parties refused to accept the HC verdict and moved Supreme Court where the final decision is expected by November 15, 2019. The following report has been prepared by senior advocate Zafaryab Jilani, who represented the Muslim side in the court.
1- In the night of 22nd/23rd December, 1949 idols were placed below the Middle Dome of the building of Babri Mosque, in a stealthy and forcible manner, after Isha prayer. The building of the Mosque was attached on 29-12-1949 and a Supurdgar (receiver) was appointed for the management of the same. The said Supurdgar had taken over charge and had framed a Scheme of Management dated 5-1-1950. On 16-1-1950 a suit for permanent injunction (Regular Suit No. 2 of 1950 now marked as O.O.S. No. 1 of 1989) was filed by Sri Gopal Singh Visharad in the court of Civil Judge at Faizabad in which temporary injuction was granted against the removal of Idols from the Mosque as well as for performance of Puja and Darshan of the same.
2. The said order of temporary injunction was modified on 19-1-1950 on the basis of an application moved on behalf of the District Magistrate of Faizabad. The said modified order dated 19-1-1950 was to the effect that the Darshan and Puja will continue as was being done on 16-1-1950. The said order was virtually replaced by means of order dated 1-2-1986 passed by the District Judge Faizabad, whereby, in a Miscellaneous Appeal filed by a stranger to the suit, he had directed the District Magistrate and S.S.P. of Faizabad to remove the Locks of the 2 Gates of the building (Babri Masjid) in order to enable the General Public to enter the main building of the Mosque for the Darshan and Puja of the idols kept below the Middle Dome of the Masjid. This order of opening of locks dated 1-2-1986 was challenged on behalf of Mr. Mohd. Hashim before the Hon’ble High court, Lucknow Bench on 3-2-1986 as there was an apprehension to the building of the Mosque and the court had granted order to maintain status-quo of the building in suit. Another writ petition against the same order dated 1-2-1986 was filed on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board in May 1986. Both these writ petitions are still pending in the Hon’ble High court at Lucknow.
3. As the First Suit (Regular Suit No. 2 of 1950) filed by Sri Gopal Singh Visharad was defective on account of having been filed without giving notice to the State of U.P. and Collector Faizabad etc., under section 80 C.P.C., another suit for similar relief was filed by Sri Param Hans Ram Chardra Das which was numbered as Regular Suit
No. 25 of 1950 (now marked as O.O.S. No. 2 of 1989). The third Suit on behalf of Hindu community was filed in 1959 by Nirmohi Akhara which was numbered as Regular Suit No. 26 of 1959 (now marked as O.O.S. No. 3 of 1989). In the written statements filed in Regular Suit No. 2 of 1950 and 25 of 1950 the State Government and collector Faizabad etc. had specifically admitted in paras 12 and 13 that the building in dispute was a mosque and not a temple of Sri Ram Chandra and Muslims had been offering prayers in the same in which the idols were placed in a stealthy and wrongful manner in the night of 22nd December, 1949.
4. The fourth suit was filed by the U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf and 8 other Muslims in a representative capacity on 18th December, 1961 in the court of Civil Judge Faizabad. This suit was
numbered as Regular Suit No.12 of 1961 (now marked as O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989). In this suit the Muslims have claimed the relief of declaration as well as possession.
5. All these Four Suits were consolidated and the suit filed by the Muslims was treated as the leading suit. In all these suits date of 25-5-1966 was fixed for final hearing on 21-4-1966 but in the mean time some miscellaneous proceedings had started and as such final hearing could not commence. Since then miscellaneous proceedings continued upto 1975 when against an order passed for the appointment of Receiver, the matter was taken to the Hon’ble High court at Allahabad and on an objection being taken by the Awadh Bar Association, Lucknow regarding the maintainability of the said F.A.F.O. at Allahabad the said F.A.F.O. was transferred to the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High court in 1977 and since then the matter remained pending before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High court upto 1987 and the Trial court record of the leading suit was also lying in the High court in the said F.A.F.O. No. 17 of 1977.
6. In the mean time an application dated 25th January, 1986 was moved in the court of Munsif Sadar, Faizabad for opening of locks. On the said application the learned Munsif had fixed a date as the file of the suit was in the High court. The application was to be put up with the record of the suit. It was against this very order dated 28-1-1986 that the applicant Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey, Advocate had filed an Appeal before the District Judge, Faizabad on 30-1-1986, without impleading any Muslim party or the Waqf Board in the said Appeal. It may also be noted that the said Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey was not even a party in any of the four suits till then. The learned District Judge fixed 31st January, 1986 and had summoned the District Magistrate as well as the S.S.P. Faizabad to appear before him personally. On coming to know about the fixation of this appeal before the District Judge Faizabad on 1-2-1986 Mr. Mohd. Hashim Ansari and Mr. Farooq Ahmad, who were plaintiffs in Regular Suit No. 12 of 1961, had moved applications for impleadment in the aforesaid appeal through Sri Mushtaq Ahmad Siddiqi, Advocate and Sri Mohiuddin Siddiqi, Advocate, respectively. The said applications were heard on the same date and without hearing any arguments on the appeal the learned District Judge had fixed the said applications for orders on the same date but at the time of pronouncement of orders passed on these applications for impleadment the learned District Judge not only rejected these applications of Muslims but also allowed the appeal and directed the District Magistrate and S.S.P. Faizabad to implement his order of opening of the locks (of Babri Masjid) forthwith. Accordingly, after the pronouncement of the order at about 4.25 P.M., the locks of the Babri Masjid were broken at about 5.00 P.M.
7. After this incident there was great pressure for the expeditious disposed of the suits and as such the State of U.P. had moved an application for transfer of all the Four Suits, pending at Faizabad, to the High court. This application was moved in December 1987 but efforts to get the same decided were made only in April-May 1989. In the meantime F.A.F.O. No. 17 of 1977 was decided and all the four
suits were ordered to be transferred to the court of an Additional District Judge whose tenure may not be less than 18 months.
8. This application for transfer of the cases relating to Babri Masjid (Regular Suit Nos. 2 of 1950, 25 of 1950, 26 of 1959 and 12 of 1961) pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Faizabad, was allowed and all those 4 cases, along with Regular Suit No. 236 of 1989, filed on first July, 1989 in the court of Civil Judge Faizabad, were transferred to the High court, Lucknow Bench, by means of order dated 10-7-1989. As per order of the Division Bench dated 10-7-1989, a Full Bench / Special Bench of 3 Judges was constituted for trial of these cases in which an application for temporary injunction was moved by the State Government to maintain status-quo over the entire property involved in the aforesaid suits. This application was allowed by the court in November 1989.
9. In October 1991, the B.J.P. Government of U.P. had acquired 2.65 acre land, including the land of the graveyard and outer portion of Babri Masjid to provide facilities for the pilgrims. The said acquisition was challenged by means of several writ petitions and due to the lengthy arguments in the said writ petitions the final hearing of these suits had remained postponed. Arguments on the said writ petitions were concluded in October 1991 and the case was reserved for judgement and the said judgement was pronounced on 11-12-1992 quashing the notifications of acquisition, while the Masjid had been demolished on 6-12-1992. After demolition of Babri Masjid the Central Government had promulgated an ordinance on 7th January, 1993 and simultaneously a Reference had also been made by the President of India to the Hon’ble Supreme court for giving its opinion about the question whether there ever existed any religious structure at the site in question. By Section 4(3) of the said Ordinance the Government had abated all the suits pending in the High court regarding the adjudication of title of Babri Masjid. This Ordinance was replaced by an Act of Parliament.
10. The Ayodhya Acquisition ordinance, 1993 was first challenged in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 pending before the Hon’ble High court and thereafter writ petition had also been filed against the same on behalf of Akshay Brahamchari and Hafiz Mohd. Akhlaq (of Ayodhya). Another writ petition against the said Ayodhya Acquisition Act was filed by the Jami-a-tul Ulema-e-Hind also. All the cases relating to the said Acquisition Ordinance (subsequently replaced by an Act) were transferred by Supreme court to be decided by itself. These cases were decided on 24th October, 1994. The Presidential Reference was returned while section 4(3) of the Ayodhya Acquisition Act (providing for abatement of suits) was quashed and declared ultra vires and all the suits were remitted to the Hon’ble High court for being decided in accordance with law.
11. In pursuance to the aforesaid judgement of the Supreme court proceedings in the Hon’ble High court were re-started in January 1995. The applications moved by different parties for amendment of the pleadings, in the light of Supreme court judgement, were disposed off in February 1996 and according to the amended pleadings some issues were also re-cast and re-framed and ultimately 23rd of July 1996 was fixed for oral evidence of the plaintiffs of
Regular Suit No. 12 of 1961 (O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989). Accordingly on 23rd July, 1996 plaintiffs’ counsel had given statement under order XVIII Rule 2 C.P.C. and the statement of P.W.1 (Mohd. Hashim) was
started on 24-7-1996. The examination-in-chief of the witness was completed within 2-3 hours, but cross-examination was done for several days and as such the statement of Mr. Mohd. Hashim could be completed only on 29-8-1996. The oral evidence of Muslims’ side could be completed only on 17-5-2002 after examination of 28 witnesses. The following chart will give a bird’s eye view of the period consumed during the examination of plaintiffs’ witnesses in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 (Regular Suit No. 12 of 1961):-
S.No. Name Dates of Statement Pages
1. PW-1 Mohd. Hashim Ansari 24-07-1996 to 29-08-1996 197
2. PW-2 Haji Mahboob Ahmad 17-09-1996 to 07-10-1996 121
3. PW-3 Farooq Ahmad 07-10-1996 to 17-10-1996 117
4. PW-4 Mohd. Yaseen 17-10-1996 to 05-11-1996 079
5. PW-5 Hafiz Abdul Rahman 05-11-1996 to 28-11-1996 064
6. PW-6 Mohd. Yunus Siddiqi, Adv. 28-11-1996 to 04-12-1996 087
7. PW-7 Hshmatullah Ansari 05-12-1996 to 25-01-1997 096
8. PW-8 Abdul Aziz 20-01-1997 to 28-01-1997 082
9. PW-9 Syed Akhlaq Ahmad 18-02-1997 to 28-02-1997 132
10. PW-10 Maulana Mohd. Idrees 28-02-1997 to 30-04-1997 115
11. PW-11 Maulana Burhanuddin 16-09-1997 to 21-11-1997 093
12. PW-12 Ram Shanker Upadhyaya 21-01-1998 to 20-04-1998 064
13. PW-13 Dr. Suresh Chandra Misra 12-07-1998 to 20-11-1998 288
14. PW-14 Jaleel Ahmad 16-02-1999 to 18-03-1999 099
15. PW-15 Dr. Susheel Srivastava 15-04-1999 to 20-12-1999 313
16. PW-16 Prof. Suraj Bhan 20-02-2000 to 10-08-2000 201
17. PW-17 Zafar Ali Siddiqi, Advocate 20-10-2000 to 08-01-2001 078
18. PW-18 Prof. Suriva Jaiswal 19-02-2001 to 04-05-2001 163
19. PW-19 Maulana Ateeq Ahmad 21-05-2001 to 10-07-2001 085
20. PW-20 Prof. Shereen Moosvi 24-07-2001 to 20-11-2001 147
21. PW-21 Dr. Mohd. Hashim Qidwai 22-11-2001 to 09-01-2002 098
22. PW-22 Maulana Mohd. Khalid Nadvi 09-01-2002 to 15-01-2002 048
23. PW-23 Mohd. Qasim Ansari 16-01-2002 to 06-02-2002 081
24. PW-24 Prof. Dhaneshwar Mandal 25-02-2002 to 05-03-2002 095
25. PW-25 Ch. Sibte Mohd. Naqvi 05-03-2002 to 02-04-2002 052
26. PW-26 Maulana Syed Kalbe Jawwad 02-04-2002 to 17-05-2002 098
27. PW-27 Prof. Shereen Ratnagar 08-04-2002 to 12-04 15-5-02 103
28. PW-28 Dr. Sitaram Rai 22-04-2002 to 14-05-2002 147
Total Pages = 3343
12. The hearing of the suits was expedited from 1-4-2002 as the court had passed the order in March 2002 for day to day hearing and had appointed Commissioner for recording statement of the witnesses as and when the Full Bench was not sitting and as such hearing of the suits stood expedited in a fast manner.
13. The statement of OPW-1 (Pram Hans Ram Chandra Das), who was defendant No. 2 in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, was recorded during the continuance of the witnesses of Muslims’ side, on an application moved by the plaintiffs of O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 and it was mentioned in the said application that the said Sri Pram Hans Ram Chandra Das may not survive for long and as such his statement may be got recorded on commission. This application was not opposed by the Muslims’ side and accordingly it was allowed and statement of OPW-1 was recorded in the Civil court at Faizabad. Similarly 2 other witnesses of the plaintiffs of O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 were sought to be examined on commission during the continuance of statements of
Muslims side. These statements also were sought to be recorded on commission on the ground that the witnesses were suffering with heart ailments. This application was also not opposed by Muslims’ side in order to expedite the proceedings and accordingly the Examination-in-Chief of OPW-2 Sri Deoki Nandan Agarwal (plaintiff No. 3 of O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989) was recorded at Allahabad between June 16 to 20, 2001 and the Examination-in-Chief as well as part of cross examination of OPW 3 Dr. S.P. Gupta was recorded in the last week of June, 2001 in the Civil court at NOIDA. Thereafter their cross examination was done in the court at Lucknow. The cross examination of OPW 2 (Sri Deoki Nandan Agrawal) could not be completed due to his death while the cross examination of OPW-3 was completed on 28-8-2002. The plaintiffs’ counsel in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 had closed his evidence in July 2002 and thereafter the oral evidence of plaintiffs of O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 was continued as per order of the court. The court had passed a detailed order regarding the sequence in which the statements were to be recorded on behalf of different parties.
14. After the death of Justice Deoki Nandan Agarwal, plaintiff No. 3 of O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989, Dr. T.P. Verma had been substituted in his place. He had examined himself also as a witness. He was Reader in the Department of History, Banaras Hindu University (B.H.U.). The following chart will indicate the period consumed in the oral evidence of the plaintiffs of O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989:-
S.No. Name Dates of Statement Pages
1. OPW-01 Sri Param Hans Ramchandra das 22-12-1999 to 20-01-2000 151
2. OPW-02 Sri Deoki Nandan Agarwal (Plaintiff) 16-06-2001 to 8-2-2002 202
3. OPW-03 Dr. S.P. Gupta 28-06-2001 to 20-08-2002 347
4. OPW-04 Sri Harihar Prasad Tiwari 01-08-2002 to 06-08-2002 046
5. OPW-05 Sri Ram Nath Misra @ Banarsi Panda 01-8-2002 to 06-08-2002 086
6. OPW-06 Sri Hausla Prasad Tripathi 13-08-2002 to 19-09-2002 161
7. OPW-07 Sri Ram Surat Tiwari 19-09-2002 to 27-09-2002 213
8. OPW-08 Sri Ashok Chandra Chaterjee 03-10-2002 to 30-10-2002 213
9. OPW-09 Dr. Thakur Prasad Verma (Plaintiff) 31-10-2002 to 06-05-2003 428
10. OPW-10 Dr K.V.Ramesh 11-11-2002 to 18-02-2003 068
11. OPW-11 Dr. Satish Chandra Mittal 05-11-2002 to 01-07-2003 351
12. OPW-12 Sri Kaushal Kishore Mishra 16-12-2002 to 08-01-2003 127
13. OPW-13 Sri Narad Saran 21-01-2003 to 05-02-2003 095
14. OPW-14 Dr. Rakesh Tiwari 07-02-2003 to 08-05-2003 94
15. OPW-15 Sri M.N.Katti 13-03-2003 to 28-04-2003 078
16. OPW-16 Sri Jatgadguru Ramananda Charya
Swami Ram Bhadracharya 15-07-2003 to 21-07-2003 075
Total = 2735 Pages
15. After the closure of oral evidence of the plaintiffs of O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989, oral evidence of the plaintiff of O.O.S. No. 1 of 1989 was started on 22-7-2003 and the same was closed on 21-8-2003. The following chart is given in respect of the witnesses produced by the plaintiff of O.O.S. No. 1 of 1989:-
S.No. Name Dates of Statement Pages
1. DW-1/1 Sri Rajendra Singh (Plaintiff) 22-07-2003 to 25-07-2003 060
2. DW-1/2 Sri Krishna Chandra Singh 28-07-2003 to 04-08-2003 092
3. DW-1/3 Sri Sahdeo Prasad Dubey 04-08-2003 to 21-08-2003 141
Total = 293 Pages
16. After the closure of oral evidence of plaintiff of O.O.S. No. 1 of 1989 the oral evidence of the plaintiff of O.O.S. No. 3 of 1989
(Defendant No. 3 of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989) was started on 29-8-2003 and the same was closed on 30-11-2004. O. O. S. No. 2 of 1989 (R.S. No. 25 of 1950) had already been withdrawn on 18-9-1990. The following chart is given in respect of the witnesses examined by the plaintiff of O.O.S. No. 3 of 1989:-
S.No. Name Dates of Statement Pages
1. DW-3/1 Sri Mahant Bhasker Das (Plaintiff) 29-08-2003 to 22-09-2003 269
2. DW-3/2 Sri Rajaram Pandey 22-09-2003 to 13-11-2003 212
3. DW-3/3 Sri Satya Narain Tripathi 30-10-2003 to 12-11-2003 097
4. DW-3/4 Sri Mahant Shiv Saran Das 14-11-2003 to 18-03-2003 116
5. DW-3/5 Sri Raghunath Prasad Pandey 18-11-2003 to 16-12-2003 214
6. DW-3/6 Sri Sitaram Yadav 06-01-2004 to 19-01-2004 111
7. DW-3/7 Sri Mhant Ramjidas Shastri 30-01-2004 to 17-03-2004 189
8. DW-3/8 Sri Pandit Shyam Sunder Mishra
@ Barkoo Maharaj 12-02-2004 to 08-04-2004 126
9. DW-3/9 Sri Ram Asrey Yadav 22-03-2004 to 25-11-2004 061
10. DW-3/10 Sri Pateshwari Dutt Pandey 23-03-2004 to 27-04-2004 111
11. DW-3/11 Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh 28-04-2004 to 13-05-2004 108
12. DW-3/12 Sri Ram Achchaibar Pandey 24-05-2004 to 02-07-2004 090
13.DW-3/13 Sri Mahant Ram Subhagdas Shastri 05-07-2004 to 27-07-2004 120
14. DW-3/14 Sri Ramanandacharya
Swami Haryacharya 23-07-2004 to 16-08-2004 184
15. DW-3/15 Sri Narendra Bahadur Singh 17-08-2004 to 23-08-2004 067
16. DW-3/16 Sri Shiv Bheek Singh 24-08-2004 to 31-08-2004 069
17. DW-3/17 Sri Mata Badal Tiwari 31-08-2004 to 17-09-2004 063
18. DW-3/18 Sri Mahant Banishidhar Das
@ Uriya Baba 15-09-2004 to 12-10-2004 164
19. DW-3/19 Sri Ram Milan Singh 13-10-2004 to 26-10-2004 073
20. DW-3/20 Sri Mahant Rajaramchandracharya 27-10-2004 to 30-11-2004 218
Total = 2662 Pages
17. After the closure of oral evidence of the plaintiffs of all the 4 suits, evidence of the defendants of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 was started and among them the defendant No. 2/1 was the first to produce his witnesses. Defendant No. 2/1 namely Mahant Suresh Das was substituted in place of Mahant Pram Hans Ram Chandra Das who had expired in 2003. The following chart shows the period during which the aforesaid witnesses of defendant No. 2/1 were examined:-
S.No. Name Dates of Statement Pages
1. DW-2/1-1 Sri Rajendra Singh (Sardar Ji) 01-12-2004 to 20-01-2005 309
2. DW-2/1-2 Sri Ram Saran Srivastava (Ex-D.M.) 20-01-2005 to 16-02-2005 184
3.DW-2/1-3 Sri Mahant Dr. Ram Vilas Das Vedanti 16-02-2005 to 9-3-2005 208
Total = 701 Pages
18. After the closure of oral evidence of defendant No. 2/1 the oral evidence of defendant No. 13/1 was started and the statement of defendant No. 13/1 was concluded on 1-4-2005. His witness namely Mahant Ayodhya Das was produced as DW-13/1-2 on 4-4-2005 and his testimony had continued up to 5-4-2005 whereafter he was reported to have fallen ill and as such DW-13/1-3 Dr. Bishun Bahadur (Reader, in Medieval History at Varshney P.G. college Aligarh) was produced as DW-13/1-3. The following chart will indicate the position of oral evidence of DW 13/1:-
S.No. Name Dates of Statement Pages
1. DW-13/1-1 Sri Mahant Dharamdas (Deft.13/1) 10-03-2005 to 01-04-2005 -226
2. DW-13/1-2 Sri Awadh Bihari Das Pathak 04-04-2005 to 05-04-2005 -029
(Adjourned due to illness of the Witness and later discharged)
3.DW-13/1-3 Dr. Bishun Bahadur (Historian) 07-04-2005 to 05-5-2005 -199
Total = 454 Pages
19. After the closure of oral evidence of DW 13/1, the defendant No. 17 (Ramesh Chandra Tripathi) was called upon to produce his witnesses, who sought time till 9-5-2005 and then produced himself on 9-5-2005 as DW 17/1, whose cross examination was completed on 17-5-2005. His statement runs into 108 pages. As no other witness of Defendant No. 17 was available his counsel had moved an application on 20-5-2005 that he was not in a position to produce any other witness. As such his evidence was closed.
20. After the closure of evidence of Defendant No. 17 on 20-5-2005 the counsel for Defendant No. 20 had sought time to produce his evidence and it was only on 25-5-2005 that his witness Sri Shashi Kant Rungta was produced. The following chart will indicate the position of oral evidence of Defendant No. 20: –
S.No. Name Dates of Statement Pages
1. DW 20/1 Sri Shashi Kant Rungta 25-5-2005 to 30-5-2005 053
2. DW 20/2 Sri Swami Awimukteshwarnand 27-6-2005 to 15-7-2005 181
3. DW 20/3 Sri Brahmachari Ramrakshanand 18-7-2005 to 25-7-2005 52
4. DW 20/4 Sri Madan Mohan Gupta 26-7-2005 to 23-11-2005 137
Total = 423 Pages
21. As the closure of oral evidence of defendant No. 20 was being delayed due to the adjournments being sought by the counsel for defendant No. 20 on the ground of illness of the brother or son of DW 20/4, the Defendant No. 6/1 and 6/2 of O.O.S. No. 3 of 1989 (Haji Mahboob Ahmad and Abdul Ahad) had sought permission of the court to produce their oral evidence. They had already moved an application on 25-5-2005 that they will produce evidence only on the point of A.S.I. Report of Excavation and on all other points they will adopt the evidence of other Muslim parties (plaintiffs of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989). As such they had produced2 witnesses on A.S.I. Report as per order of the court dated 25-8-2005.
22. Accordingly DW 6/1-1 (Haji Mehboob Ahmad) was produced on 29-8-2005 and since his witness Sri Mohd. Abid, Assistant Archaeologist from AMU, had been summoned for 12-9-2005, he was produced on 12-9-2005 as DW 6/1-2.
23. As the plaintiff No. 1 of O.O.S. NO. 4 of 1989 had also summoned the Expert witnesses from 29-9-2005, the cross examination of DW 6/1-1 could be completed only on 25-11-2005. During this very period the cross examination of DW 20/4 was also completed.
24. It may also be relevant to mention here that in pursuance to the order of the court dated 5-3-2003 excavations at the site of Babri Masjid had been conducted from 12th March to 07th August, 2003 and the report of the same was filed on 22-8-2003. Four sets of objections were filed by the Muslims against the aforesaid A.S.I. report and after hearing lengthy arguments in this respect the court
had passed an order dated 3rd February, 2005, mentioning therein that the A.S.I. report as well as objections against the same would be considered at the time of final decision of the case, in the light of the evidence which has already been produced by the parties or which may be produced. The A.S.I. report does not make any categorical mention about the existence of any alleged temple at the site of Babri Masjid and whatever observations were made regarding the same, they were also challenged by means of objections filed on behalf of the U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf as well as by Sri Mohd. Hashim, Sri Mahmood Ahmad and Haji Mahboob Ahmad etc.
25. It was in pursuance to the aforesaid order dated 3-2-2005 that the Sunni Waqf Board had given the list of 8 Expert witnesses out
of which 6 Experts were produced. Thus in all 8 witnesses were produced from the Muslims side to support their objections filed against the ASI Report. The following chart will give a birds eye view about this evidence of the Muslims: –
S.No. Name Dates of Statement Pages
1. DW-6/1-1 Haji Mehboob Ahmad 29-8-2005 to 25-11-2005 207
2. DW-6/1-2 Sri Mohd. Abid 12-9-2005 to 19-9-2005 160
3. PW29- Dr. Jaya Menon 29-9-2005 to 19-1-2006 267
(Reader in Archaeology in A.M.U.)
4. PW30- Dr. R.C. Thakran 7-11-2005 to 11-8-2006 393
(Professor in Archaeology in Delhi University)
5. PW24- Prof. D. Mandal 5-12-2005 to 4-1-2006 237
(Retired Professor and Head of Archaeology Deptt. of Allahabad University)
6. PW31- Dr. Ashok Datta 20-1-2006 to 12-5-2006 296
(Senior Lecturer in Archaeology in Kolkatta University)
7. PW16- Prof. Suraj Bhan 20-3-2006 to 28-7-2006 433
(Retired Professor and HOD of Archaeology of Kurkshetra University)
8. PW32- Dr. Supriya Verma 27-3-2006 to 24-7-2006 218
(Reader in Archaeology in Hyderabad University)
Total = 2216 Pages
26. The Muslim parties had closed their evidence on the point of A.S.I. Report on 11-8-2006 and Hindu parties were required to produce their Expert witnesses on the point of A.S.I. Report soon thereafter. However the plaintiffs of OOS No. 5 of 1989 produced their witness on 17-8-2006 and the cross examination of their witnesses was concluded on 5-12-2006. Thereafter only one witness was produced by Defendant No. 20 (Madan Mohan Gupta) as DW20/4.
27. The following chart of the witnesses as produced by the plaintiffs of O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 and defendant No. 20 of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 will indicate the position of oral evidence produced by the Hindu side on the A.S.I. Report:-
S.No. Name Dates of Statement Pages
1. OPW-17 Dr. R. Nagaswami 17-8-2006 to 22-9-2006 317
(Expert of Hindu Art and Temples — No experience
of Excavation sites of North India)
2. OPW-18 Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma 28-8-2006 to 15-11-2006 273
(Retired Superintending Archaeologist of ASI)
3. OPW-19 Mr. R.D. Trivedi 3-10-2006 to 5-12-2006 242
(Retired Director of ASI and expert of Temple
architecture of Pratihara period but no experience of excavation)
4. DW 20/4 – Jayanti Prasad Srivastava 15-1-2007 to 23-3-2007 377
(Retired Superintending Archaeologist of ASI who
had conducted several excavations)
Total = 1209 Pages
28. After the closure of oral evidence of both the sides on the ASI report, an application was moved on behalf of Nirmohi Akhara for summoning Dr.B.R.Mani and another person of the ASI team to depose about the ASI report which was opposed by the counsels representing the Muslim parties and also by some of the counsels representing Hindu parties. The said application was rejected by the court on 24-4-2007 and it was provided that oral arguments may be started.
29. On 25th of April 2006, the court had examined the issues framed in all the four Suits, namely, O.O.S. No. 1,3,4 and 5 of 1989. While examining the issues it was agreed that issues framed in different suits may be clubbed point wise to facilitate submission of arguments and reference of evidence.
30. On April 26, 2006 a chart was placed by me before the Court indicating the issues, which may be clubbed together being of similar nature. Copies of the said chart were supplied to the counsels of the parties in different cases who agreed with this kind of clubbing of issues of similar nature.
31. Accordingly I (senior advocate Zafaryab Jilani) had commenced the arguments on April 26, 2007 which had continued on April 27, 2007 and again from May 21, 2007 to May 25, 2007 During this period I had placed the pleadings of all the case. The arguments were to be resumed from July 23, 2007 as the court had closed for summer vacations from May 26, 2007. However, the arguments could not be resumed on July 23, 2007as one Judge of the Bench had retired in June 2007 and his reappointment was made only in the last week of August, 2007. As such the hearing could be resumed only from 3rd September, 2007. During this sitting only some miscellaneous work was done upto 6-9-2003 and date of further arguments was fixed from September 24, 2007 but the said date was changed for 3-10-2007. No hearing could be possible during the week of 3-10-2007 due to lawyers strike. As such arguments were virtually restarted only from 23rd October, 2007 when Mr. Siddharth Shankar Ray, Senior Advocate Supreme Court had started his arguments on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board. His arguments had continued upto 26th October. Thereafter I had again resumed the arguments and had started placing evidence. Since then my arguments had continued from 26-11-2007 to 29-11-2007, 10-12-2007 to 14-12-2007, 7-1-2008 to 9-1-2008, 21-1-2008 to 25-1-2008 and on February 12 to 14, 2008. As the court had some difficulty in sitting on 15th February as well as in the last week of February, the case was fixed for 10th March, 2008 onwards for further arguments.
32. The arguments, scheduled from 10th March, 2008, could not start due to the death of my younger brother (Qamaryab Jilani, Advocate) on 9th March, 2008. Although I had requested the court to fix the case from 13th March for arguments but the learned Judges were of the view that due to the sad demise of my younger brother I
may not be able to prepare the arguments for 13-3-2008 and as such they had fixed the case for further arguments from 24-3-2008 and again the court had changed the date for 25-3-2008 (after Holi recess). As such the arguments were heard from 25/3 to 29/3/2008 and next sitting was fixed for 7-4-2008 but for some reason the judges had changed the date for 21-4-2008 and as such my arguments had continued from 21-4-2008 to 25-4-2008 and again from 5-5-2008 to 9-5-2008 whereafter the date of 21-5-2008 to 23-5-2008 was fixed for further arguments as the court was to close w.e.f. 24-5-2008 to 29-6-2008 for Summer vacation. However, due to lawyers strike etc. at Allahabad the learned Senior Judge of the Bench could not make himself available for the Bench on 21-5-2008 etc. and as such the date was adjourned for 7-7-2008 and we had been given the impression that from 7-7-2008 the Bench may continue the hearing for 2 weeks and thereafter next date may be fixed. The arguments were resumed by me on 8-7-2008 and the arguments continued upto 8-8-2008 whereafter the date was fixed for 25-8-2008 but that date was cancelled by the court as the term of one Judge Viz. Justice O.P. Srivastava was to expire on 31-8-2008 and as such the date was fixed for 10-9-2008 as the proposal for his re-appointment was sent by the Chief Justice of High court to the Government of India in order to maintain continuity of arguments in the case. However, Mr. Justice O.P. Srivastava was not re-appointed and as such Mr. Justice Sudhir Agarwal was nominated in his place by the Chief Justice in the fourth week of September and 29-9-2008 was fixed for further hearing. As third Judge was not conversant with the case, arguments had to be restarted by me from 29-9-2008 which were continued on 30-9-2008. Thereafter the date was fixed for 14-10-2008 and arguments had continued upto 24-10-2008 and again from 10-11-2008 the same continued upto 12-11-2008. Thereafter the hearing was again delayed as it was being said that one of the Judges of the Bench may get transferred to some other High court. As such arguments were heard only on 26-11-2008 and on 27-11-2008 the lawyers had gone on strike due to the Bombay Blast. Hence the date was fixed for 10-12-2008 but arguments could take place on 11-12-2008 and 12-12-2008 and case was fixed for 12-1-2009. From 12-1-2009 my arguments had continued upto 15-1-2009 and then from 19-1-2009 to 23-1-2009 and again from 27-1-2009 to 28-1-2009 and then again on 9th and 10th February. I had concluded my arguments in the forenoon of 10-2-2009.
33. After closure of my arguments, Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate had advanced his arguments from the Muslim side on behalf of Mr. Hashim Ansari and he had also concluded his submissions on 17-2-2009. Mr. Syed Irfan Ahmad, Advocate for Haji Mahboob Ahmad and Abdul Ahad has already stated before the court on 14-1-2009 that he will advance arguments in rejoinder, if needed.
34. After close of arguments from the Muslim side, arguments were started from the Hindu side from 16-3-2009 and Mr. R.L. Verma Advocate, for Nirmohi Akhara, had argued from March 16 to May 29, 2009 and he had resumed his arguments from 7th July 2009 as the High court was closed from 30th May for summer recess. Mr. R L Varma had concluded his arguments on 24-8-2009. From 25-8-2009 Mr. Krishnamani, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court had started arguments, on behalf of Plaintiff of OOS No. 1 of 1989 which had continued upto 27-8-2009 and on 28-8-2009 the court had fixed 7-9-2009 as the next date of hearing. From 29-8-2009 a news had spread that Mr. Justice S.R.Alam (Senior Member of the Bench) was being elevated as the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court and as such no hearing could take place on 7-9-2009. However, the order of appointment of Mr. Justice S.R.Alam as C.J. of M.P. High Court came only in the third week of December and as such Mr. Justice S.U. Khan was nominated in his place only thereafter. The High court was closed from 25th December for winter vacation and as such the reconstituted Bench could start hearing of the case from 11-1-2010 only. As Mr. Justice S.U. Khan had not remained on this Ayodhya Bench earlier, arguments had to advanced afresh before the reconstituted Bench.
35. Arguments of the Muslim side were started by me on 11-1-2010 in OOS No. 4 of 1989 and the same had continued upto 22-2-2010 on which date I concluded my arguments in OOS No. 4 of 1989. Thereafter Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Siddiqi, Advocate had started his arguments on behalf of Mr. Mohd. Hashim Ansari on 23-2-2010 which were concluded on 25-2-2010. This time the court had decided, with the consent of parties counsels, that it would hear the arguments suitwise and as such the arguments in the leading suit were started first.
36. After the close of plaintiffs’ arguments in this case, the arguments were started by the defendants and as such arguments on behalf of Nirmohi Akhara (Defendant No. 3) were started by Sri Ranjeet Lal Verma, Advocate on 26-2-2010 and the same were resumed after Holi recess on 8-3-2010 which were concluded on 11-3-2010. Mr. R. L. Verma was assisted by Mr. Tarunjeet Lal Verma, Advocate.
37. After the close of arguments of Mr. R. L. Verma Advocate, Miss Ranjana Agnihotri had to start her arguments on 12-3-2010, on behalf of Defendant No. 20 (Madan Mohan Gupta) but the same could not be started on that date due to Lawyers’ strike and as such from 15-3-2010 arguments from the side of Defendant No. 20 were started by Mr. P.N. Mishra, Senior Advocate, Calcutta High Court and Supreme Court, assisted by Miss Ranjana Agnihotri. His arguments had continued upto 18-3-2010 whereafter he had to leave for his home due to some personal engagements and as such Miss Ranjna Agnihotri had continued the arguments from 19-3-2010 to 26-3-2010. Mr. P.N. Misra had resumed his arguments on 29-3-2010 and his arguments were concluded on 28-4-2010.
38. Thereafter, Mr. Madan Mohan Pandey, Advocate had started arguments on behalf of Defendant No. 2/1 (Sri Mahant Suresh Das, Chela of late Param Hans Ram Chandra Das, original Defendant No. 2) who had continued on 30-4-2010 also and from 3-5-2010 Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court had started arguments on behalf of the same party. He was assisted by Mr. Madan Mohan Pandey. Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad had concluded his arguments on 6-5-2010 and from 7-5-2010 Mr. Madan Mohan Pandey had resumed his arguments on behalf of the same party and had continued the same upto 12-5-2010 whereafter he had deferred his arguments and had permitted Mr. G. Rajagopalan, Senior Advocate of
Madras High Court to make his submissions on behalf of Defendant No. 13/1 (Daram Das). After the conclusion of arguments of Mr. G. Rajagopalan, Mr. Madan Mohan Pandey, Advocate had again resumed his arguments on 18-5-2010 and had concluded the same on 20-5-2010.
39. Mr. G. Rajagopalan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Advocate started his arguments on behalf of Defendant No. 13/1 (Dharam Das, Chela of late Baba Abhiram Das of Hanuman Garhi, Ayodhya). He was assisted by Mr. Subramanyam Swamy also. He concluded his arguments on 18-5-2010. He confined his arguments mainly to Issues Nos. 11 and 14 and admitted that nature of the building in dispute was undoubtedly that of a mosque but the question was whether it was used as a mosque for prayers or not. After the conclusion of his arguments at about 3 pm. on 18-5-2010, Mr. Madan Mohan Pandey, Advocate had again resumed his arguments on behalf of defendant No. 2/1 (Mahant Suresh Das, Legal representative of Mahant Param Hans Ram Chandra Das). After the conclusion of arguments of Mr. Madan Mohan Pandey on 20-5-2010, Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Advocate had started arguments on behalf of Defendant No. 13/1 and addressed the Court mainly on the question of Resjudicata and A.S.I. Report. He concluded his arguments at about 3.40 pm. on the same date He had also adopted the arguments of Mr. M.M. Pandey for the remaining issues.
40. Thereafter Mr. Hari Shankar Jain, Advocate had started his arguments on the same date i.e. 20-5-10 at about 3.45 pm. on behalf of Defendant No. 10 (Hindu Maha Sabha) and had continued his arguments upto 28-5-2010 whereafter the court was closed for summer vacations. With the consent of parties it was decided that further hearing of the case may start in the last week of summer vacations i.e. from 28-6-2010 so that the arguments of all the cases may be over by 30th July, 2010. Accordingly further arguments of Mr. Hari Shankar Jain had started on 28-6-2010 and the same were concluded on 30-6-2010.
41. Thereafter, I had started my reply / rejoinder to the arguments of the defendants side on the same date i.e., 30-6-2010 and my reply was concluded in the afternoon of 5-07-2010 and then Mr. M.A. Siddiqi, Advocate had started his reply / rejoinder arguments on behalf Mohd. Hashim (Plaintiff No. 7) and he had concluded his reply in the forenoon of 7-7-2010.
42. After the close of arguments of all the counsels in OOS No. 4 of 1989, Mr. Ajay Pandey, Advocate had started arguments on 7-7-2010 on behalf of the plaintiff of O.O.S. No. 1 of 1989 (Rajinder Singh, who was substituted as legal representative of Gopal Singh Visharad, original plaintiff of Regular Suit No. 2 of 1950 now marked as OOS No. 1 of 1989). He had concluded his arguments at about 3 pm. on 8-7-2010 and on the same date reply was given by Mr. Tarunjeet Varma, Advocate (for Nirmohi Akhara) as well as by me (for Sunni Waqf Board etc.).
43. Thereafter arguments were started by Mr. Ranjeet Lal Verma, Advocate on behalf of the plaintiff of OOS No. 3 of 1989 (Nirmohi Akhara) on 9-7-2010 and the same were concluded on 12-7-2010. On that very day reply to his arguments was given by me on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board etc.
44. After conclusion of arguments in O.O.S. No. 3 of 1989, the arguments, were started by Mr. K.N. Bhat, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court on 13-7-2010, on behalf of plaintiffs of O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 (Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala and another). Mr. Bhatt concluded his arguments on 15-7-2010 and in continuation of the same Mr. Madan Mohan Pandey, Advocate made further submissions on 22-7-2010 and Mr. Ved Prakash, Advocate argued and concluded his arguments on 23-7-2010 at about 2.40 pm. The reply of Mr. R.L. Verma (for Nirmohi Akhara) against the arguments of plaintiffs of O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 was also concluded at about 3.35 pm. on the same day and then I had started my reply to the arguments of plaintiff’s counsel on the same date and had concluded at about 01.10 pm. on 26-7-2010. Thereafter Mr. M.A. Siddiqi, Advocate had started his reply and had concluded his submissions at about 4.10 pm. Thereafter Mr. H.S.Jain, Advocate made his submissions on behalf of Defendant No. 11 (Hindu Maha Sabha) and concluded the same at about 5.15 pm. As the court had given inclination to conclude the hearing on 26-7-2010 itself, Mr. Madan Mohan Pandey, Advocate started his rebuttal / rejoinder at about 5.15 pm. and concluded the same at about 5.50 pm. whereafter Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate had also addressed the court for few minutes on behalf of the plaintiff of O.O.S. No. 1 of 1989.
45. After conclusion of arguments of the counsels of all the contesting parties in all the 4 suits the court had made certain querries from the Additional Chief Standing Counsel Mr. S.P. Srivastavata, Advocate about the stand of the State Government and its officials and then Video film of the building in dispute prepared by the Director of Archaeology U.P. in 1990, under the orders of the court, was also displayed in the Court Room, on the request of Mr. H.S. Jain, Advocate and after display of the same the court passed the order for close of arguments and for reserving the judgement. (Courtesy senior advocate Zafaryab Jilani, who represented the Muslim side in the case).
