Janmabhoomi Dispute | Allahabad HC Allows Suit By Lord Krishna's Next Friend To Proceed As 'Representative Suit' On Behalf Of Devotees

Importantly, the Court clarified that the plaintiffs were not permitted to sue 'on behalf of' the Muslim community and that the representative capacity allowed by the Court was exclusively in favour of Lord Krishna's devotees.

It further directed that a notice under Order 1 Rule 8(1)(a) CPC be issued within 15 days in a national newspaper, at the plaintiff's expense, to all interested persons. The Court has also permitted the plaintiff to move a separate application seeking consequential amendments in the plaint, if required.

Briefly put, Suit 17 has been filed by deity Bhagwan Shri Krishna (plaintiff no. 1), Asthan Shri Krishna Janmbhoomi (plaintiff no. 2), and other devotees (plaintiff nos. 3 to 5).

The plaintiffs allege that the property in dispute is the birthplace of Lord Krishna and has, since time immemorial, been revered as such. The suit challenges the existence of the Idgah structure as it claims that it is an unauthorised superstructure which was constructed after the demolition of the original temple during the Mughal period.

Plaintiffs [represented by Advocate PV Yogeshwaran, assisted by Advocates Tejas Kr. Singh and Ajay Kumar Singh] stated that the defendants (particularly defendant nos. 2 to 6, who happen to be the local Muslims of Mathura) actively participate in the religious affairs of the Muslim community and allegedly represent its collective interest.

The application, which was decided yesterday by the court, sought permission to sue in representative capacity against all persons of the Muslim community of India 'having the same interest', through defendant nos. 1 to 6, purportedly representing the said community.

The plaintiffs argued that this would avoid multiplicity of litigation and enable a complete and effective adjudication of the suit.

On the other hand, Advocate Tasneem Ahmadi, appearing for Defendant No. 1 (the Committee managing the Idgah Mosque) and others, opposed the application, contending that they (the defendants) had never sought leave to represent the Muslim community of India and could not be forced to do so.

She argued that representation under Order 1 Rule 8 must be voluntary, and a plaintiff cannot unilaterally claim to sue an entire religious community through select individuals (the defendants).

She also referred to earlier court directions and objected that no notice had been ordered to be issued to the Muslim community of India before seeking such sweeping representative relief by the plaintiffs in suit no. 17.

Other counsels, too, including those representing plaintiffs in related suits, objected to the maintainability of the application as they argued that it was an abuse of process.

Others claimed that the plaintiffs intended to gain popularity and that the application lacks legal foundation since the plaintiff deity already had the right to sue in its own capacity as a juristic person.

Some also contended that since 15 suits had already been consolidated, the filing of this application from Suit No. 17 of 2023 (though not consolidated) could disturb the coherence of the main proceedings, where Suit No. 1 of 2023 had been declared as the lead case.

Court's observations

The Court, at the outset, noted that although the prayer clause in the application was not happily worded, its intent was evident from the pleadings, and it was that the plaintiffs wished to prosecute the suit in a representative capacity against contesting defendants and the wider Muslim community.

The Court specifically noted that the plaintiffs had sought permission to prosecute the suit in a representative capacity against all persons of the Muslim community of India, including the contesting defendants. It clarified that this could not be construed as seeking to prosecute the suit 'on behalf of' the Muslim community.

"Although the prayer clause in application under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC is not happily worded, yet on reading the pleadings contained in the application the intention of the applicant becomes evident", the Court said.

The Court further referred to its previous order of December 19, 2024, noting that public notice had already been issued in a newspaper regarding the institution of the suit in representative capacity on behalf of Hindu devotees.

It noted that the said notice had clearly stated that the suit was being prosecuted on behalf of all Hindu devotees interested in the subject matter, and that relief was sought against the contesting defendants and "followers, men, workers, supporters or any other person acting under them including the entire Muslim community of India".

In this context, the Court took into account the religious diversity within the Hindu community. It acknowledged that Hindus are not a homogenous group with regard to faith in any one god, goddess, or deity, and that beliefs range from idol worship to formless conceptions of the divine.

However, the Court emphasised that within this broad spectrum, there exists a large number of devotees of Lord Krishna in India and abroad. The plaintiffs, the Court opined, therefore, could be permitted to prosecute the suit in a representative capacity on behalf of such devotees.

"However, amongst them there are large number of devotees of Lord Shri Krishna in India and across the globe on whose behalf and for their benefit the permission sought by the plaintiffs to contest and deal with the suit in representative capacity against the contesting defendants is acceptable", the Court remarked.

The court further observed that the suit was maintainable as a representative suit on behalf of devotees of Lord Krishna. In this regard, the single judge relied upon the Supreme Court's judgment in M. Siddique (Ram Janmbhoomi Temple) v. Suresh Das (2020) to point toward the need for public notice before proceeding further.

Thus, in conclusion, the Court modified the relief sought in the application by exercising its powers under Order 1 Rule 8(1)(b) CPC and passed the following order:

"43. As prayer made in application Order 1 Rule 8 CPC appears to be somewhat ambiguous, therefore, the relief is liable to be modified in the operative order in exercise of powers under Order 1Rule 8(1)(B) vested in the Court in the following manner:
43.1 The application under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC is allowed in the manner that the plaintiff is permitted to sue in representative capacity on behalf of and for the benefit of devotees of Lord Shri Krishna who may be interested in the suit, against the defendant no. 1 to 6 and entire Muslim community of India.
43.2 Let notice under Order 1 Rule 8 (1)(a) CPC be issued within 15 days in a National Newspaper at the plaintiffs's expense to all the persons so interested in the suit. Pursuant to this order of the 19 of 20 Court, the plaintiff may move separate application seeking consequential amendment in the plaint wherever necessary."

It is important to note that the Court's order, as recorded in paragraph 43.1 of the judgment (quoted above), is verbatim the same as the relief originally prayed for in the suit. This was also recorded by the Court also as it stated: "...the relief is liable to be modified..." in para 43.

The matter is listed next on 22 August 2025 at 2:00 PM.

Case title - Bhagwan Shri Krishna (Thakur Keshav Dev Ji Maharaj) Virajman And 4 Others vs.  Anjuman Islamia Committee Of Shahi Masjid Idgah And 7 Others

Click Here To Read/Download Order