SC fixes Dec 5 as date for final hearing in Ayodhya dispute case

The Supreme Court on Friday decided to put a batch of civil appeals concerning the Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute at Ayodhya for final hearing on December 5.
 
A three-judge bench presided over by Justice Dipak Misra rejected a plea for four months time made by Sunni Central Wakf Board and others for translation of the documents from several languages into English.
 
The court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to file translated version of the oral evidence given in the title suits within 12 weeks.
 
“Regard being complexity of the case, we grant 12 weeks for the translation. No adjournments shall be granted for the purpose,” the bench, also comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer, told the counsel.
 
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Rajeev Dhawan, Anoop Chaudhauri and others, representing the Muslim groups, strongly opposed the fixing of date for hearing, saying translation of the voluminous documents of Hindi, Urdu, Persian, Arabian, Sanskrit, Pali and Gurmukhi, were yet to be done.
 
“To say that the case is not ripe for hearing is not proper. We have to examine the High Court judgement. We can't wait for translations,” the bench said.
 
“Why not follow the procedure? Why you want to circumvent it? It is a very serious matter, don't start hearing like this,” Sibal said.
 
The bench, however, said it is the civil appeals concerning the title suit pending hear for seven years and it will go by the Civil Procedure Code.
 
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, C S Vaidynathan and others, representing the other side including Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara, submitted the court should not be wasting any more time and start considering the matter.
 
At the outset, BJP Subramanian Swamy submitted that he has filed a writ petition seeking declaration of his right to worship was to be given precedent over the right to property and it must be decided first.
 
The court, however, said it would hear civil appeals and other connected matters would be considered later. It allowed applications for substitution plaintiff and defendants who had died during the proceedings. It also directed for publication of notice within four weeks.