<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday questioned as to why it should intervene in the Allahabad High Court's decision to consolidate nearly 18 suits relating to Krishna Janmasthan-Shahi Eidgah land dispute and transfer those to itself from various civil courts in Mathura.</p><p>A bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said the consolidation of suits was beneficial for the parties as multiple proceedings should be avoided.</p><p>"Why should we intervene in the consolidation of suits," the bench asked a counsel, appearing for the Muslim side.</p>.'Aligarh's Jama Masjid built on site of ancient temples': Petition filed in UP court .<p>The counsel said suits were not similar in nature and if those suits were taken up together, they would lead to complications.</p><p>The bench, however, felt it would lead to no complication and it was for the benefit of the parties.</p><p>"What difference does it make if suits are consolidated," the bench orally observed, adjourning the matter to April 1, 2025.</p><p>The court was already seized of a matter related to the maintainability of suits.</p><p>The High Court had on May 26, 2023 decided to hear nearly 18 suits relating to the Krishna Janmasthan-Shahi Eidgah land dispute by transferring them to itself from various civil courts in Mathura.</p><p>On August 1, 2024, the High Court said the trial in 18 suits relating to the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute could continue, as it dismissed the challenge by the mosque management committee.</p><p>On January 16, 2024, the Supreme Court had stayed the Allahabad High Court's December 14, 2023 order directing a survey of the Shahi Eidgah mosque abutting the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in Mathura.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday questioned as to why it should intervene in the Allahabad High Court's decision to consolidate nearly 18 suits relating to Krishna Janmasthan-Shahi Eidgah land dispute and transfer those to itself from various civil courts in Mathura.</p><p>A bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said the consolidation of suits was beneficial for the parties as multiple proceedings should be avoided.</p><p>"Why should we intervene in the consolidation of suits," the bench asked a counsel, appearing for the Muslim side.</p>.'Aligarh's Jama Masjid built on site of ancient temples': Petition filed in UP court .<p>The counsel said suits were not similar in nature and if those suits were taken up together, they would lead to complications.</p><p>The bench, however, felt it would lead to no complication and it was for the benefit of the parties.</p><p>"What difference does it make if suits are consolidated," the bench orally observed, adjourning the matter to April 1, 2025.</p><p>The court was already seized of a matter related to the maintainability of suits.</p><p>The High Court had on May 26, 2023 decided to hear nearly 18 suits relating to the Krishna Janmasthan-Shahi Eidgah land dispute by transferring them to itself from various civil courts in Mathura.</p><p>On August 1, 2024, the High Court said the trial in 18 suits relating to the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute could continue, as it dismissed the challenge by the mosque management committee.</p><p>On January 16, 2024, the Supreme Court had stayed the Allahabad High Court's December 14, 2023 order directing a survey of the Shahi Eidgah mosque abutting the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in Mathura.</p>