Narayan Shukla, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Dileep Kumar and Mr. Ashok Pandey, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. I.B. Singh, learned Special Public Prosecutor.
(2.) THE Petitioners have challenged the orders impugned passed by the Special Judge (Ayodhya Prakaran)/Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, whereby the learned Presiding Officer closed the arguments of their counsel and reserved the case for judgment. Mr. Dileep Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that on 6th April, 2011 he attended one oldest case before the High Court of Judicature at Uttarakhand, which was listed for hearing and since due to illness he was not able to attend the proceeding of the court at Lucknow on the next date i.e. 7th April, 2011, one application on his behalf was submitted to fix another date for his argument on 11th April, 2011, but the court rejected it and listed the case on the next date i.e. 8th April, 2011, on which date, he concluded the proceeding and reserved the judgment.
(3.) IT is the case of the Petitioner that though the case was postponed for hearing of argument of learned Counsel for co -accused but this opportunity was denied to the Petitioners. It is stated that Mr. Dileep Kumar, learned Advocate argued the matter at length at the stage of discharge and the Petitioners are interested to place the arguments on their behalf only through Mr. Dileep Kumar, who is basically practicing at Allahabad High Court as he understands that Mr. Dileep Kumar is well aware with the facts of the case as well as legal position. It is also stated that co -accused has consented for him to raise legal arguments on their behalf also. On 8th April, 2011 when the date for argument of amicus curiae; namely; Chandra Mauleshwar Tripathi appointed by the court for the Petitioner; namely; Santosh Tiwari was fixed, his mother received massive heart attack at his home town Etawa on 7/8th April, 2011 night, on account of which he proceeded for his home in the early morning of 8th April, 2011 by Gomti Express Train, therefore, on 8th April, 2011 again an application was moved to fix the date on 11th April, 2011 for defence argument on behalf of the Petitioners, but the court observed that it is delaying tactics of the Petitioners, therefore, he did not feel it appropriate to grant any further time for argument and closed the same. It is further stated that it is purely a case of violation of principles of natural justice.;