IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI IN THE MATTER OF: (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) R.F.A. NO. OF 2017 Umesh Chandra Pandey & Ors.. Appellants Versus Shri Pranab Mukherjee & Anr.. Respondents I N D E X S.No. Particulars Page Nos. 1. Urgent Application /Notice A 2 Court fees. B 3. Memo of Parties C 4. Scrutiny charges. D 5. Opening sheet. E 6. List of Dates. F-G 7. Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the Ms.Vineeta Goyal, Ld. Additional District Judge-01, NDD/PHC/New Delhi in CS No.59192/2016 8. ANNEXURE A-1 The certified copy of the impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.2016 in CS No.59192/2016 passed by the Ms. Vineeta Goyal, Additional District Judge-01, NDD/PSC/NEW DELHI in Civil Suit No. 59192/16 9. ANNEXURE A-2: A copy of judgment dated 1.2.1986 passed by Shri K.M. Pandey, District Judge, Faizabad in Civil Appeal No 8 of 1986 10. ANNEXURE A-3: True copy of legal notice dated 04.07.0216 with receipt. 11 ANNEXURE A-4: The copy of plaint being C.S.No.59192/2016 dated 7.11.2016 filed by the Appellants herein before Additional District Judge Patiala House Courts, New Delhi 1-
12. Application for exemption from filing certified copies of the annexures alongwith affidavit. 13. Vakalatnama. THROUGH VISHNU SHANKAR JAIN Chamber No.127 R.K Jain, Block, Supreme Court of India,110001 Advocate for the Appellants Mobile No.8826957565 NEW DELHI DATED:.02.2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) R.F.A. NO. OF 2017 IN THE MATTER OF: Umesh Chandra Pandey & Ors.. Appellants Versus Shri Pranab Mukherjee & Anr.. Respondents To, The Registrar High Court of Delhi at New Delhi New Delhi-110003 URGENT APPLICATION 1. May I request you to kindly treat the accompanying Appeal/application as an urgent one in accordance with the Rule of the High Court of Delhi. 2. Urgent directions are prayed for. 3. Kindly list on. THROUGH VISHNU SHANKAR JAIN Chamber No.127 R.K Jain, Block, Supreme Court of India,110001 Advocate for the Appellants Mobile No.8826957565 NEW DELHI DATED:.02.2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) R.F.A. NO. OF 2017 (Against judgment and order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the Ms.Vineeta Goyal, Ld. Additional District Judge-01, NDD/PHC/New Delhi in CS No.59192/2016) IN THE MATTER OF: Umesh Chandra Pandey & Ors.. Appellants Versus Shri Pranab Mukherjee & Anr.. Respondents MEMO OF PARTIES 1. Umesh Chandra Pandey, S/o Late R.S Pandey, r/o Ranopali, Ayodhya District Faizabad. Uttar Pradesh Presently at 5/661 Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, 226010. Lucknow,Uttar Pradesh. 2. Neeraj Shankar Saxena (social worker), S/o Late Bhim Shankar Saxena R/o 25/51, Shivaji Marg, Lucknow 3. Sandhya Dubey (Advocate) Wife of Shri P.N. Dubey, Resident of 165/4, Ravindra Palli, Faizabad Road, Lucknow. U.P. 4. Sudha Sharma, (Advocate) Wife of Shri Harsh Kumar, Resident of Rano Pali Road, Dev Kali By Pass Ayodhya District Faizabad. U.P.. Appellants Versus 1. Shri Pranab Mukherjee, President of India, Rashtrapati Bhavan,
New Delhi 110 004. 2. Manager/Proprietor, Roopa Publication India Pvt. Ltd. 2016 printer and publisher of the book The Turbulent Years 1980-1996, 7/16, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002....Respondents THROUGH VISHNU SHANKAR JAIN Chamber No.127 R.K Jain, Block, Supreme Court of India,110001 Advocate for the Appellants Mobile No.8826957565 NEW DELHI DATED:.02.2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) R.F.A. NO. OF 2017 IN THE MATTER OF: Umesh Chandra Pandey & Ors.. Appellants Versus Shri Pranab Mukherjee & Anr.. Respondents REGULAR FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.11.2016 PASSED BY THE LD ADJ-01, NDD/PHC/NEW DELHI IN C.S. No.59192/2016 MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH: 1. The present Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2016 passed by Ms. Vineeta Goyal, Additional District Judge-01, NDD/PSC/NEW DELHI in Civil Suit No. 59192/16, whereby the Ld. ADJ, rejected the plaint for want of any cause of action. The certified copy of the judgment and order dated 30.11.2016 in CS No.59192/2016 passed by the Ms. Vineeta Goyal, Additional District Judge-01, NDD/PSC/NEW DELHI in Civil Suit No. 59192/16 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order ) is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE A-1. 2. The appellant seeks to very briefly recapitulate the factual matrix leading to the filing of the present appeal: A. That the Appellants are followers of Sanatan Dharm and they are devotees of Lord Ram and are Idol worshipers. They regularly visit for dharshan of Shri Ram Janambhumi at Ayodhya. The Appellants Nos. 1, 3, & 4 are residents of District Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh), whereas Appellants Nos. 2 & 5 are permanent residents of Shri Ajodhya District- Faizabad. The Appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4 are practicing
Advocates at Lucknow Bench of Hon ble Allahabad High Court, whereas Appellant No.2 is a social worker. The Appellants are emotionally devoted for Shri Ram Janmabhumi situated at Ayodhya and they feel that the Janmasthan of Lord Ram is a great symbol of National and Cultural Unity of the Nation and Glorious Ram temple must be constructed at the birth place of Lord Shri Ram at Ayodhya. The Appellants read news papers and study the books and other articles which are published and come in their knowledge in respect of the history of Ayodhya and birth place of Lord Shree Ram. B. That it is matter of record that Hindus have been fighting for liberation of Shri Ram Janmabhumi at Ayodhya for the last more than 500 years and thousands of persons sacrificed their lives from time to time. Historical evidences established that Shri Ram temple was existing at the birth place of Lord Ram at Ayodhya which was demolished under the orders of invader Babar in the year 1528 after massacre of thousand of Hindu Devotees. Since then upto 1947 Hindus continuously fought for liberation of the Asthan and Shri Ram Janmabhumi Asthal for construction of a glorious Shri Ram Temple. C. That after independence of India the legal battle for Janma Sthan started from 16 th January 1950 when a Civil Suit was filed by devotees in the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad for restraining the Muslims from interfering in their pooja and darshan of Lord Ram Lala Virajman being worshiped from ages. The civil court passed a temporary injunction order restraining Muslim Respondents from interfering in Puja and Darshan by devotees at the place described in suit, hereinafter referred to, as the Temple. The temporary injunction order granted by the Civil court was affirmed by Hon ble High Court vide order dated 26.04.1955 passed in in FAFO no. 154 of 1951.
D. That it is relevant to point out that the local administration had put a lock on the front gate of the temple without taking permission from the court and also ignoring that the Civil Court by issuing temporary injunction had restrained the Respondents from interfering in pooja and darshan of the deities by the devotees. In pursuance of the order passed by Civil Court the pujari was performing puja, archana of the deity inside the doors and the administration had also permitted VVIP s to perform puja inside the locked doors. The devotees in general were getting darshan of the Shri Ram Lala virajman from outside the locked gate. It is pertinent to mention that the lock on the main gate had not been put under the orders of any court or by any administrative order as is evident from the order of District Judge passed on 1.2.1986. E. That the Appellant No.2, a practicing advocate at District Faizabad and a devotee, after searching the records found that there was not a single order to put the lock on the gate of the temple. In these circumstances he moved an application on 25.1.1986 before the Court of Munsiff Sadar Faizabad for directing the administration to open the lock put on the gate of the temple illegally and without any authority of law but the said application was rejected. The Appellant No. 2 aggrieved with the order passed by Munsif Sadar Faizabad preferred Civil Appeal No.8 of 1986 in the Court of District Judge Faizabad. F. That the District Judge, Faizabad summoned the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police Faizabad and recorded their statements in the proceedings of the appeal. The District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police Faizabad admitted that there were no orders passed by any administrative authority for putting the locks on the main door of the temple. From these statements it was clear
that the locks on the temple gate were put without any authority of law. G. That the Learned District Judge on the basis of the factual and legal position emerging from record of the case allowed the Civil appeal No. 8 of 1986 vide order dated 01.02.1986, and directed for opening the locks put at the temple gate at Shri Ram Janambhumi Ayodhya. A copy of judgment dated 1.2.1986 passed by Shri K.M. Pandey, District Judge, Faizabad in Civil Appeal No 8 of 1986 is being filed as ANNEXURE A-2. H. That in pursuance of order dated 1.2.1986 the District Administration had to open the locks put at the gate of the temple at Shri Ram Janmabhumi on the same date and a huge crowd converged and Bhajans and Keertans were performed by large number of devotees. I. That against the aforesaid judgment one Mohd. Hasim Ansari preferred Writ Petition No. 746 of 1986 at Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court wherein vide order dated 3.2.1986, the Hon ble High Court directed to maintain status quo. The order passed by the Hon ble High Court runs as follows: Issue notice to Opp. party No. 2 to show cause why the petition may not be admitted. Until further orders of the court, the nature of the property in question as existing today shall not be changed. Notice on behalf of Opp. parties 1 and 4 to 6 have been accepted by the Chief Standing Counsel. He will also seek instructions in the matter. The learned Counsel for the petitioner shall take steps for service of notice on Opp. party No. 2 within twenty-four hours. The office shall issue notices immediately on receipts of the steps. List on 14-02-1968 with the service report upon Opp. Party No. 2.
Sd/- B. Kumar 03-02-1986 J. That the High Court on the application of the State passed an order on 10.07.1989 to transfer all the pending Civil Suits relating to Shri Ram Janmabhumi at Ayodhya, including the Suit filed by Sunni Waqf Board for possession in favour of Muslims, to the High Court for trial. K. That in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court all the Civil Suits were transferred to Lucknow bench of Hon ble Allahabad High Court. It is relevant to point out that under the orders of the High Court the entire building complex was photographed and videographed. The album of photos and videos were supplied to the litigating parties to the suits. L. That it is relevant to point out that Hon ble High Court had also directed for excavation of the land beneath the building complex to find out as to whether any building of any kind was existing thereunder are the building complex had been constructed over virgin land. M. That a team of archeological experts after scientific excavation collected soil samples of the materials found beneath; and submitted a comprehensive report in two volumes to the Hon ble High Court to the effect that there were remains of a huge temple beneath the demolished temple structure. From the said report it was proved to the hilt that the building in its present form had been constructed over the site of an existing temple, and was termed as Babri Maszid by the invading Muslims. N. That the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court decided pending Civil Suits vide judgment and decree dated 30.9.2010. Out of three judges two Hon ble Judges recorded finding of fact that there existed a temple before construction of existing structure at the same will place claimed by Muslims as mosque.
O. That the Appellants on 28.01.2016 came to know that a book authored by Shri Pranab Mukherjee (presently the President of India), titled as The Turbulent years 1980-1996, (herein after referred to as the book ) was launched and thereafter same has been sold by different book sellers across the Country. P. That the book in question has become controversial in the public. The Muslims at large are quoting the passages from the book to assert that the President of India has declared that the building complex was Babri Maszid. The Appellants have purchased the book. They read the book minutely and thoroughly. The Appellants feel that some recitals made in the book are contemptuous which lowers down the dignity of Indian Judiciary in the eyes of Indian Public and abroad. It is also clear that some facts stated in the book are based due to the prejudice of the Author based on his political ideologies and even incorrect facts have been given therein intentionally to criticize and demoralize the Hindu organizations and supporters of Sri Ram Janam Bhoomi Temple. The author has tried to establish against record that the building complex was a mosque without caring about the court proceedings. The book is being filed along with the suit for proper appreciation of the case. Q. That it is relevant to point that from 1949 to 30.4.2010, the date on which the suits were decided by the Hon ble High Court, the Puja Dharshan of deities at the Temple are being done only under the orders of the court. The locks illegally put on the door were opened under the orders of the court. It is pertinent to point that during the aforesaid period not even a single order was passed by Government in favour of Hindus regarding Puja, Darshan etc. by the devotees. It is also pertinent to mention that in the year 1989 the Silanyas
was performed in pursuance of order passed by the Hon ble High Court. R. That from the judicial records it is apparent that locks of Shri Ram Janmabhumi Complex were opened under the orders of District Judge, Faizabad passed in a judicial proceeding (Annexure No. 1 to the plaint). S. That despite the above facts, the author of the book/respondent no. 1 at page 128-129, while pointing out the error of judgment of the then Prime Minister Late Rajiv Gandhi, has given following facts: However, it is true that no one is perfect. Rajiv has been criticized for his excessive reliance on some close friends and advisers who installed a so-called babalog government. Some of them turned out to be fortune seekers. Rajiv s actions on the Shah Bano judgment and the Muslims Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Bill drew criticism and eroded his modern image. The opening of the Ram Janmabhoomi temple site on 1 February 1986 was perhaps another error of judgment. People felt these actions could have been avoided. T. That Late Rajiv Gandhi in his capacity as Prime Minister or otherwise any other leader was not involved in the opening of locks and they had no say in the judicial proceedings in passing of orders for opening the lock of the temple complex by the Learned District Judge Faizabad. U. That the author of the book has tried to convey the people that the judicial order was passed for opening of the locks of temple complex due to error of judgment of the then Prime Minister Late Rajiv Gandhi and has conveyed that the judicial
orders in India are passed under the influence of political masters and executive pressures. V. That the above statement made in the book amounts to tarnishing the image of judiciary in the eyes of general public and come within the ambit of criminal contempt punishable under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act. W. That the said comments and observations made by author in the book are also against the institutional autonomy and independence of judiciary. In a democratic setup, the judiciary being an independent institution decides/passes orders free from fear or favour, affection or ill-will. By making such comments an attempt has been made by the author to portray the image of judiciary otherwise. In doing so, the author has violated the oath of his office. X. That in the same book beginning from page 151 the author describing the incident dated 6.12.1992 has referred the disputed building complex as Babri Masjid and author has relied upon a report made by Mr. Mark Tully a BBC correspondent on 5.12.2002. The offending portion from pages 151 to 155 are being reproduced below:- On 6 December 1992, around 150,000 kar sevaks gathered at the site of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. Mark Tully reports: On 6 December 1992, I was standing on the roof of a building with a clear view of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. This was the day the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and other organizations supporting it were to begin work on building the temple, but they had given a commitment to the government and the courts that it would only be a symbolic start, a religious ceremony and no damage would be done to the mosque.
A vast crowd, perhaps 150,000 strong, had gathered and was listening to speeches given by BJP and rightwing Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) leaders. Among those present were L.K. Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi, now senior figures in the BJP-led government. The crowd gradually grew restless, gathered as they were outside the police cordon place around the mosque. Around noon, a young man managed to slip past the cordon and climb atop the mosque, brandishing a saffron flag. This was seen as a signal by the mob, which then stormed the structure. The police, vastly outnumbered and unprepared, fled the scene. The mob then attacked the mosque with axes, hammers and grappling hooks. Within a few hours, the entire mosque was levelled. The destruction of the Babri Masjid, as well as the destruction of other mosques that day, sparked outrage across the country and provoked several months of communal violence. Several BJP leaders were taken into custody and the VHP was briefly banned by the government. Despite this, riots broke out in Bombay, Surat, Ahmedabad, Kanpur, Delhi and several other laces. This incident also had international repercussions. Large parts of Bangladesh witnessed massive communal riots. Its dwindling Hindu population was targeted by miscreants. There were cases of rampant looting, arson and rape. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Summits, which was scheduled to be held in Bangladesh, was postponed. I was in Bombay on 6 December 1992, and it was Jairam Ramesh, then my Officer on Special Duty at
the planning Commissioner, who telephoned at lunchtime and informed me about the Babri Masjid demolition. The demolition of Babri Masjid was an act of absolute perfidy which should make all Indians hang their hands in shame. It was the senseless, wanton destruction of a religious structure, purely to serve political ends. It deeply wounded the sentiments of the Muslim Community in India and abroad. It destroyed India s image as a tolerant pluralistic nation where religious co-existed in peace and harmony. In fact, the Foreign Minister of an important Islamic country later pointed out to me that such damage had not been inflicted at a mosque even in Jerusalem which has seen religious conflicts for centuries. There are many who blame P.V. For the destruction of the mosque. I was not in the Cabinet at that time and, therefore, not part of the decision-making regarding the Babri Masjid issue. However, I believe the Government of India was confronted with a Hobson s choice. It did not have many options. The central government could not dismiss an elected stage government simply because it was apprehensive that the latter might not fulfil its obligation to maintain the safety of the Babri Masjid. The UP government had given a solemn assurance not only in meetings of the National Integration Council, but also through an affidavit to the Supreme Court. People argue in hindsight that the central government should have dismissed the state government under Article 356. But this is wisdom in hindsight. How could President s rule be approved by
Parliament? The Congress party did not have a majority in the Rajya Sabha. The inability to prevent the demolition of the Babri Masjid was one of P.V. s biggest failures. He should have entrusted the task of tough negotiations with other political parties to a more senior and seasoned politician familiar with politics in UP-Like N.D. Tiwari. Home Minister S.B. Chavan was an able negotiator but could not fully grasp the emotive aspects of the emerging situation. Rangarajan Kumaramangalam worked sincerely but was young, relatively inexperienced and a first-time Minister of State. Matter took a dramatic turn after the fall of the Babri Masjid. Sitaram Kesri created a scene, collapsing into tears and disrupting a Cabinet meeting at which I was present. I had to tell him, There is no reason to be melodramatic. All of you were members of the Cabinet and some of you were members of the CCPA. All decisions were taken in the meetings of the Cabinet and CCPA. Responsibility is collective; the onus cannot only be on the Prime Minister or Home Minister. Later, in private meeting with P.V., I did not mince words I burst out, Was there no one who advised you of the dangers? Did you not under the global repercussions of any damage to the Babri Masjid? At least now take concrete steps to quell communal tensions and assuage the feelings of Muslims through affirmative action. P.V looked at me as I said this, and in his characteristic style did not let any emotion cross his fact. But I had know and worked with him for several decades. I did not need to read his face. I could feel his sadness and disappointment.
I have often wondered later if it was this outburst of mine which finally led to the call I received from his on 17 January 1993, inviting me to join the Cabinet. After the destruction of the Babri Masjid, various Cabinet Committees were reconstituted. But he never constituted the most important of them- the CCPA. I am told that he did not want to include a particular minister. But instead of simply excluding him from the body, he chose not to constitute the Committee itself. Similarly, there were three or four vacancies in the nominated category of membership for the Rajya Sabha. Many recommendations and requests came to the Prime Minister. P.V. could not decide whom to nominate to fill in these open positions during his tenure. As a consequence, the next Prime Minister, H.D. Deve Gowda, filled the vacancies with his own nominees. Besides, the destruction of the Babri Masjid and P.V. s alleged inaction made him extremely unpopular with Muslims. Consequently, in the 1996 election, the Congress lost a large number of seats in the Hindi heartland- UP, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan etc.- which had a sizeable Muslim population. Hindu votes consolidated in favour of the BJP ;while Muslim votes went to non-congress, non- BJP parties like the Samajwadi Party, the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and the Left parties. Scheduled caste votes consolidated under the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP). EPILOGUE The 1980s and 1990s were a time of both stability and national upheaval. On the one hand, we had strong governments till 1989; on the other, the post 1989 scenario brought with it unstable governments,
frequent dissolutions and the rise of coalition politics. Besides, this period witnessed social and economic ferment in the form of the agitation over the Mandal Commission s report; the demolition of the Babri Masjid; ethnic unrest in large parts of the country; and a national debt crisis. Y. That by making aforesaid bald averments against Hindus and openly in favour of Babri Masjid the author has given and let to believe that the demolished structure was a Mosque and that Hindus and Hindu organizations in general are responsible of intolerant act. The statements made by author as mentioned above adversely affect the pending judicial proceedings between the parties in the Apex Court. Z. That the Appellants are devotees of Lord Ram. They are sympathizers of Hindu organizations and are its members. The Appellants are adversely affected by such statement of wrong facts and they feel duty bound to protect the interest of the community and also their religious rights conferred by Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The Appellants and the Hindus in general have been shocked and pained due to the one sided version given by the author who is holding a responsible Office like as the President of India. The general public is supposed to accept the version given by the President in his book as gospel truth even though the same are against the historical facts and material existing on judicial record.
AA. That it is a matter of surprise that Shri Pranab Mukherjee had been in active politics, associated with the Government, well versed of the functioning of the Government and he fully knew everything in respect of Ayodhya dispute and also that the Government had acquired the disputed place terming the same as Ram Janm Bhoomi Babri Masjid Complex in the year 1991 and also in the year 1993. BB. That there was no occasion for Shri Pranab Mukherjee to declare the structure in dispute at Ayodhya, as Babari Mosque. He was also aware about the reference made by President of India to the Supreme Court in respect of Ayodhya dispute. In none of the documents the Government has termed the building complex as Babri Mosque but surprisingly Shri Pranab Mukherjee as a Senior Politician and part of the Government at the relevant time knowingly fully well about the ongoing dispute, without any rhyme, reason or justification has written that due to demolition of Babari mosque all Indians hang their hands in shame. Shri Pranab Mukherjee has given one sided version intentionally due to political bias with Bhartia Janta Party and other Hindu organizations. He has intentionally tried to tarnish the image of Hindu community and Hindu Organizations. CC. That Shri Pranab Mukherjee a very learned person knowing the history that a number of temples were demolished, destroyed and damaged during the Mohamdan rule including Somnath Temple, and temples at Kashi and Mathura and
number of temples in his own State West Bengal and after independence in Kashmir by followers of Islam but he has not commented on such ugly, barbarian shameful incidents and that the people of India have been worst sufferers of atrocities shameful barbarian act and their hands are continuously hanging in shame for the last 800 years. DD. That it is relevant mention that the issue of Shri Ram Janma Bhoomi was debated in both houses of Parliament for a considerable long time when Shri Pranab Mukherjee was part of the Government in the year 1993. The acquisition of Ayodhya act was discussed by both house of Parliament when Shri Mukherjee was a Minister in the cabinet. The matter was referred to the Supreme Court by the President of India in his knowledge. The verdict of Supreme Court is also known to him, but despite all these facts he has written false and fabricated facts in the book due to malafide reasons and ulterior motive. EE. That Shri Pranab Mukherjee has tried to tarnish the image of Hindu organizations and Hindu community by using some phrases in his book as quoted herein above and he has intentionally described the disputed structure as mosque for his political ideologies which suits the Congress Party. FF. That the author has completely over looked the record of judicial proceeding and history and has given one sided version due his political ideology and bias against Hindu organizations. He has even not referred the ongoing
controversy between the parties and has over sighted the version of Hindu devotees. GG. That it is pertinent to mention that the Hon ble Full Bench (three judges) of the Allahabad High Court sitting at Lucknow delivered the judgment on 30.09.2010 in respect of the disputed complex situated at Ayodhya, whereby categorical finding was recorded by the majority of the bench to the effect that i.e. there existed a Hindu Temple before construction of demolished structure and no mosque could have been constructed at the same place. HH. That parties to the litigation, both Hindus and Muslims have filed their respective civil appeals before the Supreme Court and the same are pending. II. That a number of persons are facing trial for allegedly demolishing this disputed structure. JJ. That due to the averments made in the book there are serious reactions in Hindu society and devotees of Lord Ram, on the other hand supporters of Babri Masjid and those who are interested to tarnish the image of mother India, are citing the book to contend that the Hindu organizations have demolished a Mosque. KK. That it is strange that author has not taken into consideration that even after independence in Kashmir a number of Hindu temples in 1990 were demolished by followers of Islam. The atrocities committed on Hindus have been ignored by the author in the book.
LL. That the Respondent No. 1 should not have written anything in a matter which is sub-judice before the Apex Court. MM. That that persons facing criminal trial for demolition of the building complex situated at the place in question on 06.12.1992 would be seriously prejudiced. NN. That President of India is required to act impartially and he is above political considerations. He cannot show his inclination towards any political thought or party. OO. That the there are reasons to believe for the members of Hindu Community that Shri Pranab Mukhrjee may not be able to discharge his duty as President of India in respect of the matters concerning Shri Ram Janam Bhoomi issue. PP. That in these circumstances to maintain the dignity of Hindu society and the sentiments of devotees of Lord Ram it is necessary that objectionable parts from the book as mentioned above be expunged forthwith. QQ. That the Appellants on 04.07.2016 have sent a notice in accordance with Article 361(4) of the Constitution of India to Sri Pranab Mukherjee Respondent No.1, on his residential address through registered post, which according to postal tracking report was served on him on 05.07.2016,. The Respondent no. 1 has not replied the notice to the Appellants and he has not communicated any action, if any, taken for deleting the offending portion from the book. RR. That being aggrieved by the aforesaid statements and averments made by the Respondent No.1 the counsel for the
petitioners issued legal notice dated 04.07.2016 to the Respondent No.1 which was duly served upon him on 5.07.0216. A true copy of the legal notice dated 04.07.2016 along with postal receipts and proof of service is marked and filed herewith as Annexure No.3. SS. That being aggrieved and dissatisfied from above book publication, the Appellants herein are filed plaint being C.S. No.59192 of 2016 before Court of the District Judge/ Additional District Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. In the aforesaid suit the Appellants herein prayed that:- i) Pass a decree declaring that facts mentioned at page 128-129 of the book titled as Turbulent Years 1980-1996 as reproduced in para No.16 of the plaint are false and contemptuous and facts stated at page 153 of the same book in paragraph 22 are against the religious sentiments of the plaintiffs and Hindu devotees in general, same is uncalled for, malicious and based on political considerations and are liable to be deleted from the Book; ii) Decree the suit for mandatory injunction directing defendant No.1 to delete objectionable facts mentioned at page No.128-129 and Page No. 153 as reproduced in para 16 and 22 of the instant plaint and issue public notice for such deletion; iii) Decree the suit for permanent injunction restraining Defendant No.1 and 2 from selling and publishing the book titled as Turbulent Years 1980-1996 without deleting the
objectionable facts as mentioned at page No.128-129 and Page No. 153 to 158 and 185 as reproduced in para 18 and 25 of the instant plaint; and The copy of plaint being C.S.No.59192/2016 dated 7.11.2016 filed by the Appellants herein before Additional District Judge Patiala House Courts, New Delhi is being filed as ANNEXURE A-4. TT. That vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.2016, the Ld. Addl. District Judge-01, erroneously rejected the plaint for want of any cause of action. 3. It is submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the established law and legal principles and is liable to be set aside on the following amongst other grounds, which are without prejudice to and independent of each other:- GROUNDS I. Because, the impugned judgment is against law and facts applicable to the case. II. Because, the Court below has failed to appreciate that the right to freedom of speech and expression conferred by Article 19 (1) (a) of Constitution of India is subject to the limitation provided in sub clause (2) and the law made by Parliament and State legislatures imposing reasonable restriction. III. Because, the Court below has failed to appreciate that nobody is above law and in a book or in making public statements nobody has right to make any statement against facts and cannot directly or indirectly violate the provisions of contempt of Courts Act and cannot incite any offence and further cannot play with the sentiments of General public.
IV. Because no Author can lower down the dignity and prestige of the Nation and the Indian judiciary. V. Because in the instant case Sri Pranab Mukharjee in the book has given wrong facts and has lowered down the dignity and prestige of Hindus and the Nation by making unfounded aspersions. VI. Because impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. VII. Because the Court at the stage of admission/registration of the plaint cannot look into the defence of the respondents. Neither these points were argued by the respondents before the Court. The phrase cause of action has to be construed in the light of the relief claimed by the plaintiff. For the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the matter the issue the cause of action arose and the stage of registration of plaint the suit cannot be dismissed on the basis of the probable defence which could have been raised by the respondents. VIII. That the meaning of case of action is a fact or facts that enable a person to bring an action against another. That in light of this definition the appellants had reasonable legal right after publication of the book and justification to file a suit against Respondent No.1 and therefore the Hon ble Learned District Judge Patiala House Court erred dismissing the suit filed by the appellants. 4. The present Appeal is being filed within the period of limitation. 5. That an amount Rs. has been affixed with this Appeal for the purpose of Court fees. 6. This appeal is made bonafide and in the interest of justice. PRAYER
In the premises as aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon ble Court may pleased to: a. Set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.2016 passed by Ms. Vineeta Goyal, Additional District Judge-01, NDD/PSC/NEW DELHI in Civil Suit No. 59192/16;and b. Direct the Ld. Trial Court to register the suit and proceed in accordance with law; c. Pass such other or further order/s as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case. FILED BY THROUGH VISHNU SHANKAR JAIN Chamber No.127 R.K Jain, Block, Supreme Court of India,110001 Advocate for the Appellants Mobile No.8826957565 NEW DELHI DATED:.02.2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) R.F.A. NO. OF 2017 IN THE MATTER OF: Umesh Chandra Pandey & Ors.. Appellants Versus Shri Pranab Mukherjee & Anr.. Respondents AFFIDAVIT I, Umesh Chandra Pandey, S/o Late R.S Pandey, aged years, R/o Ranopali, Ayodhya District Faizabad. Uttar Pradesh Presently at 5/661 Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, 226010 Lucknow,Uttar Pradesh, presently came down to New Delhi, do hereby state on oath and declare as under: 1. That I am Appellant No.1 herein and am well conversant with the facts of the aforesaid case and am competent to swear this affidavit on behalf of other Appellants also to file the present appeal. 2. That I have read and understood the contents of the present appeal and affirm the contents to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, nothing material has been concealed therefrom. 3. That the Annexures are true copies of their respective originals. DEPONENT VERIFICATION Verified at New Delhi day of February, 2017 that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. DEPONENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI IN THE MATTER OF: (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) C.M.A. No. of 2017 in R.F.A. NO. OF 2017 Umesh Chandra Pandey & Ors.. Appellants Versus Shri Pranab Mukherjee & Anr.. Respondents APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF C.P.C. SEEKING EXEMPTION FROM FILING THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE ANNEXURE/S. MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH: 1. That the present Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2016 passed by Ms. Vineeta Goyal, Additional District Judge-01, NDD/PSC/NEW DELHI in Civil Suit No. 59192/16, whereby the Ld. ADJ, rejected the plaint for want of any cause of action. 2. The Appellants craves leave of this Hon ble Court to refer rely upon the contents of the accompanying Appeal for the purposes of the present application. The contents contained in the accompanying appeal are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity and in order to avoid repetition. 3. That the appellant is not in a position to file the certified copies of the annexure/s. The appellant therefore prays for being exempted from filing certified copies of the annexure/s at this stage and the Appellant undertake to file the same as and when it is directed by this Hon ble Court.
4. That the present application is made bona fide and in the interest of justice. PRAYER It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed this Hon ble Court may be pleased to:- a. Exempt the appellant from filing certified copies of the annexure/s. b. Pass such other or further orders as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. FILED BY THROUGH VISHNU SHANKAR JAIN Chamber No.127 R.K Jain, Block, Supreme Court of India,110001 Advocate for the Appellants Mobile No.8826957565 NEW DELHI DATED:.02.2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) C.M.A. No. of 2017 in R.F.A. NO. OF 2015 IN THE MATTER OF: Umesh Chandra Pandey & Ors.. Appellants Versus Shri Pranab Mukherjee & Anr.. Respondents AFFIDAVIT I, Umesh Chandra Pandey, S/o Late R.S Pandey, aged years, R/o Ranopali, Ayodhya District Faizabad. Uttar Pradesh Presently at 5/661 Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, 226010 Lucknow,Uttar Pradesh, presently came down to New Delhi, do hereby state on oath and declare as under: 1. That I am Appellant No.1 herein and am well conversant with the facts of the aforesaid case and am competent to swear this affidavit on behalf of other Appellants also to file the present appeal. 2. That I have read and understood the contents of the accompanying application and affirm the contents to be true and correct. 3. That the contents of the present affidavit are true and correct and nothing material has been concealed. DEPONENT VERIFICATION Verified at New Delhi day of February, 2017 that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. DEPONENT
LIST OF DATES 1528 That it is matter of record that Hindus have been fighting for liberation of Shri Ram Janmabhumi at Ayodhya for the last more than 500 years and thousands of persons sacrificed their lives from time to time. Historical evidences established that Shri Ram temple was existing at the birth place of Lord Ram at Ayodhya which was demolished under the orders of invader Babar in the year 1528 after massacre of thousand of Hindu Devotees. Since then upto 1947 Hindus continuously fought for liberation of the Asthan and Shri Ram Janmabhumi Asthal for construction of a glorious Shri Ram Temple. 16.01.1950 That after independence of India the legal battle for Janma Sthan started from 16 th January 1950 when a Civil Suit was filed by devotees in the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad for restraining the Muslims from interfering in their pooja and darshan of Lord Ram Lala Virajman being worshiped from ages. 26.04.1955 The civil court passed a temporary injunction order restraining Muslim Respondents from interfering in Puja and Darshan by devotees at the place described in suit, hereinafter referred to, as the Temple. The temporary injunction order granted by the Civil court was affirmed by Hon ble High Court vide order dated 26.04.1955 passed in in FAFO no. 154 of 1951. 1982-1985 That it is relevant to point out that the local administration had put a lock on the front gate of the temple without taking permission from the court and also ignoring that the Civil Court by issuing temporary injunction had restrained the Respondents from interfering in pooja and darshan of the deities by the devotees. In pursuance of the order passed by Civil Court the pujari was performing puja, archana of the
deity inside the doors and the administration had also permitted VVIP s to perform puja inside the locked doors. The devotees in general were getting darshan of the Shri Ram Lala virajman from outside the locked gate. It is pertinent to mention that the lock on the main gate had not been put under the orders of any court or by any administrative order as is evident from the order of District Judge passed on 1.2.1986. 25.1.1986 That the Appellant No.1, a practicing advocate at District Faizabad and a devotee, after searching the records found that there was not a single order to put the lock on the gate of the temple. In these circumstances he moved an application on 25.1.1986 before the Court of Munsiff Sadar Faizabad for directing the administration to open the lock put on the gate of the temple illegally and without any authority of law but the said application was rejected. Jan,1986 The Appellant No. 1 aggrieved with the order passed by Munsif Sadar Faizabad preferred Civil Appeal No.8 of 1986 in the Court of District Judge Faizabad. That the District Judge, Faizabad summoned the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police Faizabad and recorded their statements in the proceedings of the appeal. The District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police Faizabad admitted that there were no orders passed by any administrative authority for putting the locks on the main door of the temple. From these statements it was clear that the locks on the temple gate were put without any authority of law. 1.2.1986 That the Learned District Judge on the basis of the factual and legal position emerging from record of the case allowed the Civil appeal No. 8 of 1986 vide order dated 01.02.1986, and directed for opening the locks
put at the temple gate at Shri Ram Janambhumi Ayodhya. In pursuance to order dated 1.2.1986 the District Administration had to open the locks put at the gate of the temple at Shri Ram Janmabhumi on the same date and a huge crowd converged and Bhajans and Keertans were performed by large number of devotees. February,1986 Against the aforesaid judgment one Mohd. Hasim Ansari preferred Writ Petition No. 746 of 1986 at Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court wherein vide order dated 3.2.1986, the Hon ble High Court directed to maintain status quo. The order passed by the Hon ble High Court runs as follows: Issue notice to Opp. party No. 2 to show cause why the petition may not be admitted. Until further orders of the court, the nature of the property in question as existing today shall not be changed. Notice on behalf of Opp. parties 1 and 4 to 6 have been accepted by the Chief Standing Counsel. He will also seek instructions in the matter. The learned Counsel for the petitioner shall take steps for service of notice on Opp. party No. 2 within twenty-four hours. The office shall issue notices immediately on receipts of the steps. List on 14-02-1968 with the service report upon Opp. Party No. 2. Sd/- B. Kumar 03-02-1986 10.07.1989 That the High Court on the application of the State passed an order on 10.07.1989 to transfer
all the pending Civil Suits relating to Shri Ram Janmabhumi at Ayodhya, including the Suit filed by Sunni Waqf Board for possession in favour of Muslims, to the High Court for trial. A team of archeological experts after scientific excavation collected soil samples of the materials found beneath; and submitted a comprehensive report in two volumes to the Hon ble High Court to the effect that there were remains of a huge temple beneath the demolished temple structure. From the said report it was proved to the hilt that the building in its present form had been constructed over the site of an existing temple, and was termed as Babri Maszid by the invading Muslims. 30.09.2010 The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court decided pending Civil Suits vide judgment and decree dated 30.9.2010. Out of three judges two Hon ble Judges recorded finding of fact that there existed a temple before construction of existing structure at the same will place claimed by Muslims as mosque. 28.1.2016 The Appellants on 28.01.2016 came to know that a book authored by Shri Pranab Mukherjee (presently the President of India), titled as The Turbulent years 1980-1996, (herein after referred to as the book ) was launched and thereafter same has been sold by different book sellers across the Country. That the book in question has become controversial in the public. The Muslims at large are quoting the passages from the book to assert that the President of India has declared that the building complex was Babri Maszid. The
Appellants have purchased the book. They read the book minutely and thoroughly. The Appellants feel that some recitals made in the book are contemptuous which lowers down the dignity of Indian Judiciary in the eyes of Indian Public and abroad. It is also clear that some facts stated in the book are based due to the prejudice of the Author based on his political ideologies and even incorrect facts have been given therein intentionally to criticize and demoralize the Hindu organizations and supporters of Sri Ram Janam Bhoomi Temple. The author has tried to establish against record that the building complex was a mosque without caring about the court proceedings. The book is being filed along with the suit for proper appreciation of the case. From the judicial records it is apparent that locks of Shri Ram Janmabhumi Complex were opened under the orders of District Judge, Faizabad passed in a judicial proceeding (Annexure No. 1 to the plaint). That despite the above facts, the author of the book/respondent no. 1 at page 128-129, while pointing out the error of judgment of the then Prime Minister Late Rajiv Gandhi, has given following facts: However, it is true that no one is perfect. Rajiv has been criticized for his excessive reliance on some close friends and advisers who installed a so-called babalog government. Some of them turned out to be fortune seekers. Rajiv s actions on the Shah Bano judgment and the Muslims Women (Protection of Rights on
Divorce) Bill drew criticism and eroded his modern image. The opening of the Ram Janmabhoomi temple site on 1 February 1986 was perhaps another error of judgment. People felt these actions could have been avoided. 4.07.2016 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid statements and averments made by the Respondent No.1 the counsel for the petitioners issued legal notice dated 04.07.2016 to the Respondent No.1 which was duly served upon him on 5.07.0216. 7.11.2016 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied from above book publication, the Appellants herein are filed plaint being C.S. No.59192 of 2016 before Court of the District Judge/ Additional District Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi seeking mandatory injunction directing respondent No.1 to delete objectionable facts mentioned at page No.128-129 and Page No. 153 as reproduced in para 16 and 22 of the plaint and issue public notice for such deletion and for other reliefs; 30.11.2016 Vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.2016, the Ld. Addl. District Judge-01, erroneously rejected the plaint for want of any cause of action. 30.11.2016 Vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.2016 passed by Ms. Vineeta Goyal, Additional District Judge-01, NDD/PSC/NEW
DELHI in Civil Suit No. 59192/16, the Ld. ADJ, rejected the plaint for want of any cause of action....02.2017 Hence, the present Appeal.