The petition was rejected on the ground it was aimed at “creating obstruction” in the final disposal of the matter.
Rejecting the petition by defendant Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, a three-judge bench of the of the court comprising Justices S U Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and D V Sharma also imposed “exemplary costs” of Rs 50,000 terming his effort for an out-of-court settlement as a “mischievous attempt”.
“….the application lacks bona fide and is a clear attempt to divert, deviate and also to create obstruction in the final disposal of this matter after more than six decades without there being any reason whatsoever.”
“Considering also the fact that all other learned counsel appearing for different parties, whether plaintiffs or defendants, have seriously opposed it, we have no hesitation in rejecting this application.”
Allaying apprehensions of the possible violence in the wake of next week’s judgement in the 60-year-old case, Lucknow bench of the Court observed that “arrangement of security is the responsibility of the State”.
“We have read in the newspapers that the Prime Minister of the country has assured the people that the government is capable of meeting any contingency.”
“We cannot comment but repose confidence in the government since they are the best judge of what required to maintaining law and order and/or security of any individual of group of such individuals, as the case may be, shall be taken care of,” it said.
The judges observed that the applicant has without any lawful excuse or reason has filed this application and “we hold this attempt mischievous, and, therefore, “he deserves to be imposed exemplary cost”.
The judges, before rejecting the application, asked the parties whether they were interested in going for any discussion for a compromise and none of them showed interest.
The court also directed the registrar of the high court to send a copy of the order to the chief secretary , UP, central home secretary and to the Press Trust of India for communication to the people.
Tripathi had filed the application for making another attempt to reach a solution to the dispute through reconciliation and deferment of the verdict.
Objections were filed Thursday by Sunni Central Board of Wakf and the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha before Court against any deferment of the verdict and with Friday’s order they have become infructuous.