The Hindu side stressed that the deity is a perpetual minor and, therefore, the provisions of Order XXXll of Civil Procedure Code, which deals with the procedure regarding suit by or against a minor, will apply.
The court adjourned the hearing till Monday.
The matter is being heard by Justice Mayank Kumar Jain on the applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC moved by the Muslim side regarding maintainability of the suits.
Earlier on behalf of the Hindu side, it was submitted that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 will apply only in case of undisputed structure and not in case of a disputed structure, as in present case.
In the present case, the character of the structure is still to be decided in the suit and it is to be decided only by evidence, the Hindu side submitted. “An illegal construction on the temple cannot bar the institution of suit. All this has to be decided in the suit itself on merit,” the counsel for the Hindu side submitted. The Muslim side submitted before the court that the suit is barred by limitation because the parties had entered into compromise on October 12, 1968. By that compromise, the land in dispute was given to Intazamia committee of Shahi Idgah. The said compromise has been confirmed in a civil suit decided in 1974, it said.
The Muslim side further submitted that the suit has been filed for possession after the removal of the Shahi Idgah masjid structure, for the restoration of the temple and for permanent injunction. The prayer in the suit shows the structure of the masjid is there and the committee of management is in possession of the same, it said.
“In this way, a question/ dispute has been raised on waqf property and thus the provisions of Waqf Act will apply… It is the waqf tribunal which has jurisdiction to hear the matter and not a civil court,” the Muslim side added.
