Press Trust Of India
New Delhi, September 23, 2010
New Delhi, September 23, 2010
First Published: 15:21 IST(23/9/2010)
Last Updated: 19:30 IST(23/9/2010)
=============================================================================================Last Updated: 19:30 IST(23/9/2010)
The Allahabad High Court verdict on the Ayodhya title suit will not be delivered on Friday with the Supreme Court deferring it by a week in a sudden turn of events on Thursday deciding to hear the plea for postponement next Tuesday. After sharp differences over the issue of
entertaining the petition challenging the HC order refusing to postpone the judgement, a Bench comprising Justices R V Raveendran and H L Gokhale stayed for a week the verdict due to have been pronounced tomorrow by the High Court's Lucknow Bench.
Following the court's tradition in case of differences, the Bench decided to issue notices to all the contesting parties and sought their response to the plea by retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chand Tripathi.
Tripathi's petition pleaded for exploring the possibility of an out-of-court settlement on the 60-year-old Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit dispute.
Significantly, the court made the Centre a party to the hearing by issuing a notice to Attorney General G E Vahanvati and sought his presence when the deferment plea comes up again on Tuesday.
Justice Raveendran was of the view that the special leave petition filed by Tripathi should be dismissed while Justice Gokhale was of the opinion that a notice should be issued for exploring the option of settlement.
Following the court's tradition in case of differences, the Bench decided to issue notices to all the contesting parties and sought their response to the plea by retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chand Tripathi.
Tripathi's petition pleaded for exploring the possibility of an out-of-court settlement on the 60-year-old Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit dispute.
Significantly, the court made the Centre a party to the hearing by issuing a notice to Attorney General G E Vahanvati and sought his presence when the deferment plea comes up again on Tuesday.
Justice Raveendran was of the view that the special leave petition filed by Tripathi should be dismissed while Justice Gokhale was of the opinion that a notice should be issued for exploring the option of settlement.
Notwithstanding his reservations, Justice Raveendran, who was heading the Bench, preferred to go along with Justice Gokhale in making one attempt to find a settlement.
"If there is one per cent chance, you have to give it (for settlement)," Justice Gokhale said.
Justice Raveendran in his order said "One of the members of the Bench is of the view that the SLP should be dismissed. Another member is of the view that the order should be stayed and notice issued.
"Tradition of this court is when one member says that notice be issued another says that it should not be issued, the notice should be issued.
"And we issue notice and stay the order. There shall be an interim stay for a week. Notice to all parties and the Attorney General who shall be present in the court".
The posting of the next hearing on September 28 assumes importance in view of the fact that one of the three judges of the Ayodhya bench in Lucknow--Justice D V Sharma--is due to demit office on October 1st.
(hindustan times)
No comments:
Post a Comment