Hindu parties on Saturday objected to submission of “moulding of relief” by Muslim parties in a sealed cover in the Ayodhya title dispute.
The “moulding of relief” in civil disputes is usually nature of relief parties seek from the court, and it can be resorted to at the time of consideration of final relief in the main suit and not at an interlocutory stage. The Supreme Court on October 16 had reserved its judgement in the Ayodhya case.
Hindu parties in a letter to Secretary General, Supreme Court, said the Muslim parties did not take permission to file documents related to relief before the court in a sealed cover.
A statement issued by Hindu side said: “The filing of submissions in a sealed cover without service upon the parties appearing in the case is improper and cannot be taken on record, especially when the hearing of the case is concluded and judgement is reserved.”
Ejaz Maqbool, advocate-on-record, for one of the main litigants in the case filed the submissions in a sealed cover. It is learnt it is a joint submission by all the Muslim parties involved in the matter.
“…The practice of filing written submissions in a sealed is not permissible as it encourages addressing the court in secrecy, keeping the other party in the dark, and it would also prejudice the rights of the other parties”, said the Hindu side. They also urged the court to return the sealed cover submissions as defective and that it should not be placed before five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.
Kartick Chopra, spokesperson for Nirmohi Akhara, said: “Sealed cover submission is not at all accepted. How do we know what is filed? Technically, they should have circulated their submissions among other parties involved in the dispute.”
The UP Sunni Waqf Board is facing an internal rift where factions have taken opposing stands on the settlement of Ayodhya dispute. Advocate Shahid Rizvi, on behalf of the Chairman of the Waqf Board, has favoured settlement instead of judgement in the case, indicating dropping the claim on the disputed land.
The other advocate in a joint statement with other Muslim parties’ lawyers said that it is difficult to accept that any mediation could have been done under the circumstances, especially when the main Hindu parties had openly stated their non-participation in any settlement.
Muslim parties’ counsels have not responded to text messages and phone calls.
Ram Lalla Virajman and Nirmohi Akhara had refused to participate in the second round of mediation. In 2010, the Allahabad High Court verdict equally distributed the 2.77 acre in question between Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Waqf Board.