<p class="title">The Supreme Court will on Thursday pronounce its judgement if the 1994 verdict in 'Dr Ismail Faruqui case' holding that mosque was not essential to the practice of Islam, is required to be reconsidered.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The Muslims side sought reconsideration of the judgement saying the 1994 ruling, if allowed to sustain, would adversely affect adjudication of the title suit relating to Babri Masjid and Ram Temple in Ayodhya.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The Uttar Pradesh government as well as Hindu side, however, vehemently opposed it saying the Muslim sides belatedly sought reconsideration of an observation made in a five-judge bench decision in 1994, in order to delay the decision in long pending temple dispute.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing legal representatives of M Siddiq, one of the original litigants, claimed that the 1994 observation had formed on the basis of the Allahabad High Court's “panchayati” judgement in 2010.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The Hindu sides said the said judgment would have no effect in the case, related to the title suit.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The UP government said the dispute has been awaiting final adjudication for "almost a century" and the issue of the observation was not taken up by any litigant.</p>
<p class="title">The Supreme Court will on Thursday pronounce its judgement if the 1994 verdict in 'Dr Ismail Faruqui case' holding that mosque was not essential to the practice of Islam, is required to be reconsidered.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The Muslims side sought reconsideration of the judgement saying the 1994 ruling, if allowed to sustain, would adversely affect adjudication of the title suit relating to Babri Masjid and Ram Temple in Ayodhya.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The Uttar Pradesh government as well as Hindu side, however, vehemently opposed it saying the Muslim sides belatedly sought reconsideration of an observation made in a five-judge bench decision in 1994, in order to delay the decision in long pending temple dispute.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing legal representatives of M Siddiq, one of the original litigants, claimed that the 1994 observation had formed on the basis of the Allahabad High Court's “panchayati” judgement in 2010.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The Hindu sides said the said judgment would have no effect in the case, related to the title suit.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The UP government said the dispute has been awaiting final adjudication for "almost a century" and the issue of the observation was not taken up by any litigant.</p>
