The Supreme Court Tuesday asked the counsels for both Hindu and Muslim parties in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case to inform it about the tentative "time schedule" for concluding their arguments.
The moment the 5-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, re-assembled in the afternoon on the 25the day of the hearing, it asked senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Muslim parties, about the time schedule for conclusion of arguments saying it will enable it to know the time left for writing the judgement.
The CJI, who would demit office on November 17, this year, asked Dhavan to sit with his associates and inform the apex court about the number of days they will take to conclude the arguments.
The bench, also comprising justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, asked Dhavan to consult lawyers from other sides as well.
Dhavan, arguing for Sunni Waqf Board and others including original litigant M Siddiq on the 8th day, said he also wanted a judgement in this case and he would be very fast in advancing submissions.
The top court said that if the schedule is known, "then we will know how much time we have to write the judgment".
The senior lawyer then said that the court may consider granting him mid-week break on this Friday.
The bench said he may take the break, but the other counsel from Muslim side can advance submissions on Friday.
"I do not want to break my argument," Dhavan said, adding that they have a schedule and they are conscious of the speed of the arguments.
The bench said Dhavan might be needing the break, but his "young team" was capable and would like to work hard.
The apex court, on August 6, had commenced the day-to-hearing in the Ayodhya land dispute case and on being opposed by Dhavan, it had assured mid-week breaks to him to prepare the case.
The Allahabad High Court, in its judgment of 2010 on four civil lawsuits, had partitioned the 2.77-acre disputed land equally among Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
Fourteen appeals have been filed in the Supreme Court against the verdict.
(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)