Justice Mayank Kumar Jain has scheduled the next hearing for August 12. Additionally, the court has allowed the Hindu plaintiffs’ counsel more time to file objections to a recent application by the Committee of Management Shahi Masjid Idgah of Mathura.
Allahabad: Last Week, the Allahabad High Court granted the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) a one-week period to respond to a plea for surveying the Jama Masjid in Agra. This directive follows claims that the mosque may conceal relics of historic Hindu idols.
READ ALSO: [Krishna-Janmabhoomi- Shahi Idgah] Deity Not Involved in Compromise, Hindu Side Tells HC
The plea, initiated by Hindu plaintiffs, alleges that idols of Thakur Keshav Dev, the primary deity of the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple, were buried beneath the mosque after its destruction by Mughal emperor Aurangzeb’s forces in 1670.
Justice Mayank Kumar Jain has scheduled the next hearing for August 12.
Additionally, the court has allowed the Hindu plaintiffs’ counsel more time to file objections to a recent application by the Committee of Management Shahi Masjid Idgah of Mathura. This committee seeks recognition as a party in the ongoing legal discourse.
This case is part of 18 consolidated petitions concerning the disputed Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah site. The specific suit was filed on behalf of deity Thakur Keshav Dev Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir Katra Keshav Dev, represented by a devotee.
Earlier, the Hindu counsel further contended the compromise was allegedly made by the Sri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan, a body entrusted with the management of the temple’s day-to-day affairs.
However, the counsel contended that the Sansthan lacked the authority to engage in such a compromise, as its sole purpose was to oversee routine activities and did not possess the right to enter into such agreements.
READ ALSO: Hindu Side vs. Allahabad HC: The Impact of Waqf Board on Shahi Idgah Dispute
The Muslim side, raised the issue of the suit being barred by limitation. Ahmadi claimed that the parties involved had reached a compromise on October 12, 1968, which was subsequently validated in a civil suit decided in 1974.
Under the law, the limitation on challenging a compromise is three years. Ahmadi argued that since the suit was filed in 2020, it was time-barred and could not be entertained.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
