Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The appellant herein, who happens to be a practicing advocate, assails the judgment dated 25.04.2025, whereby the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction filed by the appellant herein came to be dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court.

2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal can Mehmood Pracha Vs. Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala Virajmaan be adumbrated herein as under: During a public address at Kaneser, Pune, Maharashtra, Sh. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud; Hon'ble Former CJI, has delivered a speech in Marathi. The appellant has claimed that the Hon'ble CJI in his public address has admitted that the judgment dated 09.11.2019, delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal No. 10866- 10867/2010 and connected matters titled as M. Siddiq (D) through LRs Vs. Mahant Suresh Das and Ors (hereinafter referred to as 'Ayodhya case') was in terms of the solution provided to him by Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala Virajman (respondent herein and one of the plaintiffs in the bunch of matters in Ayodhya case bearing Regular Suit No. 236 of 1989).

C. Pass any other order deemed fit and necessary in the facts of the case."

4. Eventually, vide order dated 25.04.2025, Ld. Trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence the instant appeal.

5. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds:

5.1 (A) Locus standi:

It is forcefully argued that the Ld. Trial Court grossly erred by dismissing the suit of the appellant on the ground of 'locus standi'. It is submitted that in the Ayodhya case rights of the two communities i.e. Hindu community and Muslim community were adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is submitted that the appellant herein is a member of Muslim community and since his rights were affected by the pronouncement of the judgment in the Ayodhya case, therefore, he being an aggrieved person has every rights to institute a suit and he cannot be non-suited merely on the ground of locus standi. It is thus argued that the ld. Trial Court has fell into an error by dismissing the suit on the ground of locus standi.

6. It is thus argued that the impugned judgment dated 25.04.2025 of the Ld. Trial Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and needs to be set aside.

7. Let us now deal with the above mentioned contentions of the appellant in seriatim.

8. (A) Locus Standi:

8.1 Ld. Trial Court has non-suited the appellant on the ground of locus as the plaintiff was not a party in the Ayodhya case and he cannot claim himself to be an affected party.

8.2 Perusal of the judgment in the Ayodhya case would reveal that one of the bunch matters i.e. Regular Suit No. 12 of 1961 (Suit No.

Mehmood Pracha Vs. Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala Virajmaan 9.3 Evidently, the Hon'ble Judge was praying to the Supreme Being to help him find out a way whereas the litigant before the Hon'ble Judge in the Ayodhya case was a juristic personality distinct from the Supreme Being. The appellant seems to have missed the subtle distinction between the 'Supreme God' and the 'Juristic Personality' litigating before the Court, probably on account of misunderstanding the law and religion. It appears that the appellant has not cared to go through the Ayodhya case judgment, otherwise such a confusion would not have arisen in his mind.