Another blow to Muslim side in Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah dispute case, recall petition dismissed

New Delhi. Today, the Muslim side has once again suffered a setback in the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi and Shahi Idgah Mosque dispute case of Mathura. Allahabad High Court rejected the recall petition filed by the Muslim side. The single bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain upheld the order for hearing all the 15 petitions together. The next hearing of this case will now be held after Diwali on November 6 at 2 pm. While the Hindu side is considering this decision as a big victory, the Muslim side is talking about challenging the decision of the High Court in the Supreme Court.

Hindu side's lawyer Saurabh Tiwari said that the High Court has rejected the recall petition of the Muslim side. This is a big victory for the Hindu side and we are confident that the trial will now proceed without any hindrance. He alleged that the recall petition was filed by the Muslim side with the aim of creating obstruction to delay the proceedings. Now the High Court has given its decision and it is in the interest of both the parties. Meanwhile, Secretary of Shahi Idgah Mosque, Mathura, Tanveer Ahmed said that Allahabad High Court has rejected our recall petition. Once we get the copy of the High Court order, we will approach the Supreme Court.

Earlier on August 1, the High Court had also rejected the petition of the Muslim side. Allahabad High Court said – all the 18 petitions filed by the Hindu side will be heard together. In the petitions filed by the Hindu side, there has been a demand to hand over the Shahi Idgah Mosque to the Hindus, describing it as the birthplace of Shri Krishna. According to the Hindu side, the entire two and a half acre area of ​​Idgah is the sanctum sanctorum of Lord Shri Krishna. The mosque was constructed illegally after demolishing the temple. On the other hand, the Muslim side says that there was an agreement between the two parties regarding the disputed land in 1968, hence it is completely unfair to call the agreement wrong after 60 years, hence this case is not maintainable.

Comments are closed.