<p>The special Lucknow bench of the court comprising justices S U Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and V K Dixit passed the order while hearing the review petitions filed by lawyer M Ismail Farooqui.<br /><br />The court also extended the status quo on the implementation of the September 30 order upto February 15.<br /><br />The court had provided three months time for filing the appeal while directing that the judgement shall not be operative for three months from that date.<br /><br />Farooqui had moved petitions seeking review in the judgement on the suits of Rajendra Singh, Nirmohi Akhara and Bhagwan Ram Lala Virajman.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the court also reserved its order on the objections filed by the Hindu Mahasabha, a party in the case, in connection with finalising the decree after hearing the arguments of the counsel of the party.<br /><br />On September 30, a three-judge Lucknow bench of the court had held that the 2.77 acre disputed land in Ayodhya be divided into three parts among Hindus and Muslims. It had ruled that the place where the makeshift temple of Lord Rama currently exists belongs to the Hindus.<br /><br />The majority 2-1 verdict running into nearly 8,000 pages had come after nearly 60 years of tortuous litigation over who holds the title to the disputed site.<br /><br />Justices S U Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and D V Sharma had written separate judgements but the majority verdict held that the area covered by the central dome of the three-domed structure where the idol of Lord Rama is presently situated belongs to Hindus.<br /><br />Justices Khan and Agarwal had said the entire disputed land should be divided into three equal parts, each to be given to Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and the parties representing 'Ram Lalla Virajman' (seated Baby Ram).<br /><br />The majority judges had declared maintenance of status quo at the disputed land for three months.</p>
<p>The special Lucknow bench of the court comprising justices S U Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and V K Dixit passed the order while hearing the review petitions filed by lawyer M Ismail Farooqui.<br /><br />The court also extended the status quo on the implementation of the September 30 order upto February 15.<br /><br />The court had provided three months time for filing the appeal while directing that the judgement shall not be operative for three months from that date.<br /><br />Farooqui had moved petitions seeking review in the judgement on the suits of Rajendra Singh, Nirmohi Akhara and Bhagwan Ram Lala Virajman.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the court also reserved its order on the objections filed by the Hindu Mahasabha, a party in the case, in connection with finalising the decree after hearing the arguments of the counsel of the party.<br /><br />On September 30, a three-judge Lucknow bench of the court had held that the 2.77 acre disputed land in Ayodhya be divided into three parts among Hindus and Muslims. It had ruled that the place where the makeshift temple of Lord Rama currently exists belongs to the Hindus.<br /><br />The majority 2-1 verdict running into nearly 8,000 pages had come after nearly 60 years of tortuous litigation over who holds the title to the disputed site.<br /><br />Justices S U Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and D V Sharma had written separate judgements but the majority verdict held that the area covered by the central dome of the three-domed structure where the idol of Lord Rama is presently situated belongs to Hindus.<br /><br />Justices Khan and Agarwal had said the entire disputed land should be divided into three equal parts, each to be given to Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and the parties representing 'Ram Lalla Virajman' (seated Baby Ram).<br /><br />The majority judges had declared maintenance of status quo at the disputed land for three months.</p>