<p class="title">The Supreme Court on Tuesday saw sharp exchanges between the lawyers representing the Hindu and Muslim parties during the proceedings in the politically sensitive Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case.</p>.<p class="bodytext">During the hearing, Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who represents Muslim parties, got up and intervened when Parasaran was submitting that a "historical wrong" was committed by Mughal emperor Babur after his conquest of India more than 433 years ago by constructing a mosque at the birthplace of Lord Ram and it needed to be corrected.</p>.<p class="bodytext">"This is entirely a new argument. All this could have been argued by them in other lawsuits as well. I am entitled to give reply in rejoinder arguments," Dhavan told the bench. </p>.<p class="bodytext">Parasaran, along with another senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, objected that there were a lot of interruptions from the other side and the court should set the things right as this is the case of public right.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Later in the day, Vaidyanathan, who started arguing on behalf of one Mahant Suresh Das, took strong note of some murmuring of lawyers from the other side and said: "I cannot continue with the running commentary going on here".</p>.<p class="bodytext">As Vaidyanathan said that he cannot argue, Dhavan, in high pitch tone, said, "What is all this. How can he say that I am doing the running commentary"</p>.<p class="bodytext">"Stop this," shouted Dhavan and this led to a sharp reaction from Vaidyanathan as well.</p>.<p class="bodytext">"How can he (Dhavan) say this (stop it) to me," Viadyanthan retorted and urged the court to take note of all this.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The CJI tried to calm the tempers and said, "These are disruptions... you (Vaidyanathan) see, how agitated you are looking".</p>.<p class="bodytext">Vaidyanathan then proceeded with his submissions and alleged that the Muslim side can take benefit of adverse possession, only if they admit that the deity was the previous and lawful owner of the property.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Dhavan got up again and said that he was forced to interrupt as the lawyer for the other side was not giving the complete picture.</p>.<p class="bodytext">"You do not have to point out the obvious to the judges," the bench told Dhavan.</p>
<p class="title">The Supreme Court on Tuesday saw sharp exchanges between the lawyers representing the Hindu and Muslim parties during the proceedings in the politically sensitive Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case.</p>.<p class="bodytext">During the hearing, Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who represents Muslim parties, got up and intervened when Parasaran was submitting that a "historical wrong" was committed by Mughal emperor Babur after his conquest of India more than 433 years ago by constructing a mosque at the birthplace of Lord Ram and it needed to be corrected.</p>.<p class="bodytext">"This is entirely a new argument. All this could have been argued by them in other lawsuits as well. I am entitled to give reply in rejoinder arguments," Dhavan told the bench. </p>.<p class="bodytext">Parasaran, along with another senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, objected that there were a lot of interruptions from the other side and the court should set the things right as this is the case of public right.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Later in the day, Vaidyanathan, who started arguing on behalf of one Mahant Suresh Das, took strong note of some murmuring of lawyers from the other side and said: "I cannot continue with the running commentary going on here".</p>.<p class="bodytext">As Vaidyanathan said that he cannot argue, Dhavan, in high pitch tone, said, "What is all this. How can he say that I am doing the running commentary"</p>.<p class="bodytext">"Stop this," shouted Dhavan and this led to a sharp reaction from Vaidyanathan as well.</p>.<p class="bodytext">"How can he (Dhavan) say this (stop it) to me," Viadyanthan retorted and urged the court to take note of all this.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The CJI tried to calm the tempers and said, "These are disruptions... you (Vaidyanathan) see, how agitated you are looking".</p>.<p class="bodytext">Vaidyanathan then proceeded with his submissions and alleged that the Muslim side can take benefit of adverse possession, only if they admit that the deity was the previous and lawful owner of the property.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Dhavan got up again and said that he was forced to interrupt as the lawyer for the other side was not giving the complete picture.</p>.<p class="bodytext">"You do not have to point out the obvious to the judges," the bench told Dhavan.</p>
