Delhi court upholds civil judge order dismissing plea seeking declaration of Ayodhya verdict as 'null and void'

New Delhi: A Delhi court has dismissed a plea challenging a civil judge's order that had rejected a suit seeking that the Supreme Court's judgment in the Ayodhya case be declared "null and void".

The district court was hearing the revision plea filed by Advocate Mehmood Pracha against the April 2025 order of a civil court, which had dismissed his suit with costs of Rs 1 lakh.

Underlining that seeking guidance from the Almighty cannot be berated as a fraudulent act to gain an unfair advantage, either in law or in any religion, District Judge Dharmender Rana imposed an additional Rs 5 lakh fine “to effectively check the menace of frivolous and luxurious litigation.” Noting the facts of the case, the court said Pracha had claimed that during a public address in Pune, former Chief Justice of India, D Y Chandrachud, had admitted that the October 2019 judgment in the Ayodhya case “was in terms of the solution provided to him by Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala Virajman.” Accordingly, it said that Pracha filed a suit seeking a declaration of the verdict as void, besides seeking fresh adjudication.

The court noted that against the civil judge’s order dismissing his plea, Pracha had filed the present appeal.

In an order dated October 18, Judge Rana dismissed the appeal with an additional cost of Rs 5 lakh, saying, “Evidently, the cost imposed by the trial court (civil court) has failed to achieve the intended goal of deterrent effect.

"Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that to effectively check the menace of frivolous and luxurious litigation, the cost amount needs to be suitably enhanced to fetch the desired results.” He said Pracha had challenged the Ayodhya case verdict on “absolutely frivolous grounds”, without bothering to go through the verdict.

“The insistence of the appellant (Pracha) to implead the CJI, soon after his retirement, speaks volumes against his oblique intent,” the judge said.

He said that ‘Aham Brahama Asmi’ was a core tenet of Hindu philosophy, embodying the idea that the individual self is not separate from the universal, infinite consciousness, and even the holy Quran permitted the devotees to seek guidance for the right path from the almighty Allah.

“Therefore, seeking guidance from the Almighty cannot be berated as a fraudulent act to gain an unfair advantage, either in law or in any religion,” the judge said.

“Evidently, the distinction between a juristic personality litigating before the court and the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient supreme being is absolutely clear from the Ayodhya case judgment itself.

"Resultantly, one cannot resist the inference that the imputations of the appellant are a result of his sheer indolence and incorrect understanding of the subject,” he added.

He said there was no scope for arguing that the plaint disclosed any cause of action.

A five-judge Constitution bench unanimously granted the entire 2.77 acres of the disputed Ram-Janmbhoomi Babri Masjid land in Ayodhya to the deity Ram Lalla on November 9, 2019.

The judge further agreed with the civil court's observation that Pracha was not a party in the Ayodhya case, and so he could not claim himself to be an affected party, that his suit was barred by law, and was in fact an abuse of the process of law.

He said, “The already overburdened dockets of the court cannot afford the menace of luxurious and frivolous litigation, and the issue becomes all the more concerning when a responsible officer of the court opts to file a frivolous litigation.” The menace of luxurious and frivolous needs to be dealt with an iron hand, the judge said.

He said that recently a negative trend had emerged in society, where public functionaries were targeted upon demitting offices by some unscrupulous litigants, who nurtured a misconceived notion that upon demitting office, an ex-public functionary became vulnerable and prone to all kinds of malicious and malefic assault.

“Therefore, courts of this country owe a duty to ensure a peaceful and pleasant evening to the persons who have devoted their lives to the service of the nation. Not only the courts but even the bar owes an important duty to diligently act as a sentinel so that the impurities are sieved out at the entry gates themselves,” he added.