U.C.Srivastava, S.H.A.Raza, JJ. - (1.) THIS is an application under Section 24 read with Section 151, C.P.C. moved by the State on December 15, 1987 praying that the two writ petitions pending in this court viz. Writ Petition No. 764 of 1986, Md. Hashim v. State of U.P. and others, and Writ Petition No. 3106 of 1986, U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs v. State of U.P. and others, hearing may be deferred and Regular suit No. 12 of 1961, Sunni Central Waqf Board v. Gopal Singh Visharad along with three other connected Regular suits No. 2 of 1950, Gopal Singh Visharad v. Zahoor Ahmad, R.S. No. 25 of 1960, Pramhans Ramchandra Das v. Zahoor Ahmad and others, R.S. No. 26 of 1959, Nirmohi Akhara v. Babu Priya Datta Ram and others., pending in the court of Munsif Sadar, Faizabad may be withdrawn by this court for trial and disposed by this court. The pivotal question involved in all these four suits in regarding the dispute for the place known as Babri Masjid or Ram Janam Bhoomi, Muslims claiming it to be a mosque and the Hindus claiming it to be Ram Janam Bhoomi temple. Out of these four suits pending in the court of Munsif Sadar, Faizabad suit No. 12 of 1961 was treated as leading case by an order passed by the trial court and suit No. 2 of 1950, R.S. No. 25 of 1960 and R.S. No. 26 of 1959 were consolidated with it against an order passed by the court of Civil Judge, Faizabad, an appeal under Order XXXIII in the matter of appointment of Receiver was moved which was registered as F.A.F.O. No. 17 of 1977. The said appeal was decided on March 23, 1977 and it was directed that the record of all four suits pending in the lower court be placed before the District Judge, Faizabad who will arrange to transfer all the suits to an Additional District Judge, Faizabad who may not be transferred out of Faizabad for about 18 months and that said Additional District Judge will try these suits as early as possible. In the meantime against the order passed by the court of Munsif, dated January 28, 1986 an appeal was filed in the court of District Judge and the District Judge directed the respondents to the appeal to open the locks of the gates of said temple and directed that they shall not impose any sort of restriction or hurdle in Darshan or on the Pooja and worship etc. of the appellants and other members of the community in general and they will be responsible for the control and safety of the pilgrimage and to maintain the law and order situation. Against the said order writ petition No. 746 of 1986 was preferred before this court which is pending. This court on 3 -2 -1986 passed an order directing that nature of the property in question shall not be changed. The Sunni Central Waqf Board also in the meantime filed writ petition No. 3106 of 1986 against the order passed by the Court of District Judge, dated February 1, 1986 which is also pending in this court.
(2.) THE State of U.P. moved this application for withdrawal of cases on account of the allegations made in Writ Petition No. 764 of 1986 and the affidavits filed by the parties in writ petition No. 3106 of 1986 it is evident that in the event the disputes sought to be raised in the two writ petitions are adjudicated by this court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and any observation made by this court would affect the adjudication by the Civil Court in all four regular suits. It was further stated that in the prevailing circumstances in the State and in the public interest it is necessary that the hearing of two writ petitions No. 746 of 1985 and 3106 of 1986 may be deferred and the four suits referred to above may be expeditiously decided by this Court. The said application could not be disposed of and was pending An application was again moved by the State in the month of February, 1989 on the administrative side praying that this application under Section 24. C.P.C., may be listed for orders as early as possible. It was mentioned in the said application that the suits relate with inter se dispute between the members of two communities; one claiming it to be Ram Janam Bhoomi temple and the other as Babri Masjid and though the dispute is purely civil in nature but it assumes importance, time to time in the context as it some times excites religious sentiments and generates tension between the communities. It was further stated that the State Government is concerned to preserve amity and brotherly relations between the communities, but at times it assumes sensitive issue and sometimes creates possibility of discord and tension between otherwise peaceful population and the hearing and final disposal of suits in the civil, court will take long time and hence the cases may be transferred to this court. On that application it was ordered that the case may be listed on February 23, 1989 and this is how proceedings started. On February 23, 1989 the case was heard to some extent and as some parties were found to have not been served, it was directed that notices may be issued to the heirs and legal representatives of the parties who in the meantime have died and the case was directed to be listed on May 3, 1989. On May 3, 1989 arguments of learned Advocate General were heard but soon it was discovered that subsequently impleaded three persons in one case were not arrayed as parties. Notices were issued to them. In the meantime, it appears that on July 1, 1989 a fresh suit was filed in the court of Civil Judge, Faizabad being suit No. 236 of 1989 by the three plaintiffs Bhagwan, Sri Ram Virajman and others represented by Sri (sic) a senior advocate impleading 25 defendants in the said suit the Court ordered, issue of summons to the defendants and fixed August 7, 1989 for filing written statement and August 14, 1989 for framing of issues. The plaintiffs of the said suit now have moved an application under Section 24, C.P.C. for transfer of said suit also to this Court for trial along with other four cases referred to earlier. In this case expeditious steps were taken for service and all the defendants except defendant No. 4 have been served. Sri D N. Agarwals appearing personally has stated that all the remaining defendants who has not been served will be served with the summons of suit and the court can proceed to dispose of this application under Section 24, C.P.C. along with the application which is being heard.
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned Advocate General placed reliance on B.M.T. Mathews v. I.M. Athanhasius, : A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1909 in which case some 250 suits were going on in the court of Kerala. In that case evidence had been recorded. The Court directed that the suits may be withdrawn to the High Court as the said suits affected considerable section of public and it was observed that withdrawal could not be rejected by exaggerating importance of demeanour of witnesses as observed by trial Judge and that expedit termination of litigation is of vital importance in such cases. The Court also considered the fact that transfer to High Court would mean one right of appeal will be lost. The Court repelled the plea which could not stand in the way of High Court in transferring such cases before it and deciding it finally to end the controversy lingering for the last several years and creating unwanted situation. Similarly in the case of Union of India v Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee : A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1986 the Supreme Court after taking into consideration earlier cases decided by it, and in view of the fact that the suit was instituted before the Court at Amritsar by Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee claiming damages against Union of India for causing loss to properties of various Gurudwaras managed by plaintiff in Golden Temple and in State of Punjab and seeking mandatory injunction against defendants and their functionaries to tender unqualified apology. The application for transfer was allowed in view of critical time and extraordinary situation prevailing in State of Punjab and nature of allegations against some officers of Union of India. The case was transferred to Delhi High Court for trial.;