The management committee of the Shahi Idgah mosque in Uttar Pradesh’s Mathura has moved the Supreme Court against an Allahabad High Court order from last month allowing the Archeological Survey of India and the Union government to be made parties to an ongoing suit, Live Law reported.

The Shahi Idgah is located in a 13.37-acre complex, which also houses the Katra Keshav Dev temple. Hindu litigants have claimed that the mosque was built at the spot where the deity Krishna was born after demolishing a temple there.

On March 5, the Allahabad High Court allowed an application by a Hindu plaintiff to add the Archeological Survey of India and the Centre as parties. The plaintiff contended that the structure in question is a protected monument under the Archeological Survey of India and cannot be used as a mosque, Bar and Bench reported.

The plaintiff argued that the Places of Worship Act, 1991, will not apply to the structure. The 1991 law prohibits altering the status of any place of worship from what it was on the day of India’s Independence.

After the mosque committee moved the Supreme Court against the High Court order, a bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan issued notices to the Hindu litigants.

The court, however, verbally observed that on a preliminary reading, the High Court order appeared to be correct.

Khanna said if the mosque committee argued that the Places of Worship Act applied to the case, the Hindu litigants were entitled to amend their petition and contend that the law would not apply.

“Prima facie the order to that extent appears to be correct in accordance with law, because when you are amending the plaint, you are not going into the merit,” the chief justice said, according to Live Law.

The court rejected the stand of the mosque committee that the application for adding new parties to the suit constituted a new case. The matter will be heard further on April 8.

The mosque committee, in its petition, said that the plea to add the Archeological Survey and the Centre as parties was an attempt to negate the defence taken by the Muslim side.

“The proposed amendments show that the Plaintiffs are attempting to negate the defence taken by the Defendant that the Suit is barred by the Places of Worship Act 1991 by setting up a new case,” the committee was quoted as saying by Bar and Bench. “The Plaintiffs are amending their Plaint, to try and wriggle out of the defence taken by the defendant that the suit is barred under the Places of Worship Act, 1991.”