JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava and S.H.A. Raza. JJ. - This is an application under Section 24 read with Section 151, C.P.C. moved by the State on December 15, 1987 praying that the two writ petitions pending in this court viz. Writ Petition No. 764 of 1986, Md. Hashim v. State of U.P. and others, and Writ Petition No. 3106 of 1986, U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs v. State of U.P. and others, hearing may be deferred and Regular suit No. 12 of 1961, Sunni Central Waqf Board v. Gopal Singh Visharad along with three other connected Regular suits No. 2 of 1950 Gopal Singh Visharad v. Zahoor Ahmad, R.S. No. 25 of 1960, Pramhans Ramchandra Das v. Zahoor Ahmad and others, R.S. No 26 of 1959, Nirmohi Akhara v. Babu Priya Datta Ram and others, pending in the court of Munsif Sadar, Faizabad may be withdrawn by this court for trial and disposed by this court. 2. The pivotal question involved in all these four suits in regarding the dispute for the place known as Babri Masjid or Ram Janam Bhoomi, Muslims claiming it to be a mosque and the Hindus claiming it to be Ram Janam Bhoomi temple. Out of these four suits pending in the court of Munsif Sadar, Faizabad suit No. 12 of 1961 was treated as leading case by an order passed by the trial court and suit No. 2 of 1950, R.S. No. 25 of 1960 and R.S. No. 26 of 1959 were consolidated with it against an order passed by the court of Civil Judge, Faizabad, an appeal under Order XXXIII in the matter of appointment of Receiver was moved which was registered as F.A.F.O. No. 17 of 1977. The said appeal was decided on March 23. 1977 and it was directed that the record of all four suits pending in the lower court be placed before the District Judge, Faizabad who will arrange to transfer all the suits to an Additional District Judge, Faizabad who may not be transferred out of Faizabad for about 18 months and that said Additional District Judge will try these suits as early as possible. In the meantime against the order passed by the court of Munsif, dated January 28, 1986 an appeal was filed in the court of District Judge and the District Judge directed the respondents to the appeal to open the locks of the gates of said temple and directed that they shall not impose any sort of restriction or hurdle in Darshan or on the Pooja and worship etc. of the appellants and other members of the community in general and they will be responsible for the control and safety of the pilgrimage and to maintain the law and order situation. Against the said order writ petition No. 746 of 1986 was preferred before this court which is pending. This court on 3-2-1986 passed an order directing that nature of the property in question shall not be changed. The Sunni Central Waqf Board also in the meantime filed writ petition No. 3106 of 1986 against the order passed by the Court of District Judge, dated February 1, 1986 which is also pending in this court. 3. The State of U.P. moved this application for withdrawal of cases on account of the allegations made in Writ Petition No. 764 of 1986 and the affidavits filed by the parties in writ petition No. 3106 of 1986 it is evident that in the event the disputes sought to be raised in the two writ petitions are adjudicated by this court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and any observation made by this court would affect the adjudication by the Civil Court in all four regular suits. It was further stated that in the prevailing circumstances in the State and in the public interest it is necessary that the hearing of two writ petitions No. 746 of 1985 and 3106 of 1986 may be deferred and the four suits referred to above may be expeditiously decided by this Court. The said application could not be disposed of and was pending. An application was again moved by the State in the month of February, 1989 on the administrative side praying that this application under Section 24. C.P.C, may be listed for orders as early as possible. The said application could not be disposed of and was pending. An application was again moved by the State in the month of February, 1989 on the administrative side praying that this application under Section 24. C.P.C, may be listed for orders as early as possible. It was mentioned in the said application that the suits relate with inter se dispute between the members of two communities; one claiming it to be Ram Janam Bhoomi temple and the other as Babri Masjid and though the dispute is purely civil in nature but it assumes importance, time to time in the context as it some times excites religious sentiments and generates tension between the communities. It was further stated that the State Government is concerned to preserve amity and brotherly relations between the communities, but at times it assumes sensitive issue and some times creates possibility of discord and tension between otherwise paceful population and the hearing and final disposal of suits in the civil, court will take long time and hence the cases may be transferred to this court. On that application it was ordered that the case may be listed on February 23, 1989 and this is how proceedings started. 4. On February 23, 1989 the case was heard to some extent and as some parties were found to have not been served, it was directed that notices may be issued to the heirs and legal representatives of the parties who in the meantime have died and the case was directed to be listed on May 3, 1989. On May 3, 1989 arguments of learned Advocate General were heard but soon it was discovered that subsequently impleaded three persons in one case were not arrayed as parties. Notices were issued to them. In the meantime, it appears that on July 1, 1989 a fresh suit was filed in the court of Civil Judge, Faizabad being suit No. 236 of 1989 by the three plaintiffs Bhagwan, Sri Ram Virajman and others represented by Sri (sic) a senior advocate impleading 25 defendants in the said suit the Court ordered issue of summons to the defendants and fixed August 7, 1989 for filing written statement and August 14, 1989 for framing of issues. The plaintiffs of the said suit now have moved an application under Section 24, C.P.C. for transfer of said suit also to this Court for trial along with other four cases referred to earlier. In this case expeditious steps were taken for service and all the defendants except defendant No. 4 have been served. Sri D.N. Agarwals appearing personally has stated that all the remaining defendants who has not been served will be served with the summons of suit and the court can proceed to dispose of this application under Section 24, C.P.C. along with the application which is being heard. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned Advocate General placed reliance on B.M.T. Mathews v. I.M. Athanhasius, AIR 1979 S.C. 1909 , in which case some 250 suits were going on in the court of Kerala. In that case evidence had been recorded. The Court directed that the suits may be withdrawn to the High Court as the said suits affected considerable section of public and it was observed that withdrawal could not be rejected by exaggerating importance of demeanour of witnesses as observed by trial Judge and that expedit termination of litigation is of vital importance in such cases. The Court also considered the fact that transfer to High Court would mean one right of appeal will be lost. The Court repelled the plea which could not stand in the way of High Court in transferring such cases before it and deciding it finally to end the controversy lingering for the last several years and creating unwanted situation. Similarly in the case of Union of India v. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee AIR 1986 S.C. 1896 , the Supreme Court after taking into consideration earlier cases decided by it, and in view of the fact that the suit was instituted before the Court at Amritsar by Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee claiming damages against Union of India for causing loss to properties of various Gurudwaras managed by plaintiff in Golden Temple and in State of Punjab and seeking mandatory injunction against defendants and their functionaries to tender unqualified apology. The application for transfer was allowed-in view of critical time and extraordinary situation prevailing in State of Punjab and nature of allegations against some officers of Union of India. The case was transferred to Delhi High Court for trial. 6. The application for transfer was allowed-in view of critical time and extraordinary situation prevailing in State of Punjab and nature of allegations against some officers of Union of India. The case was transferred to Delhi High Court for trial. 6. It was further contended that the suit should be transferred to this Court because the suits are even now pending for the last forty years and issues were framed only recently and it is only after consolidation of cases under orders of the Court issues could be framed. It was further contended that because of these sensitive cases, law and order situation arises every now and then not only at Faizabad but elsewhere also and pendency of cases at Faizabad for unknown number of years and then before appellate Court will only aggravate situation and would be a slur in the judicial process. Learned Advocate General made it clear that the Government has no doubt in the competence or fairness of the subordinate judiciary but because of the communal problem and disturbance of communal harmony and devise tendency which is developing, transfer of suits from Faizabad is necessary to the High Court so that the High Court may dispose it of expeditiously and the controversy may come to an end finally. 7. Shri A. Mannan appearing on behalf of Zaheer Ahmed and others supported the arguments advanced by learned Advocate General and contended that the suit should be transferred to this Court. 8. Shri V.K. Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of some of the opposite parties also did not oppose transfer application and contended that they will have no objection if the cases are transferred to the High Court and are disposed of expeditiously. Sri Deoki Nandan Agarwala appearing personally and Sri G.M. Lodha appearing on behalf of some persons also did not oppose this application and contended that in the interest of communal harmony and good relations between the two communities transfer of cases to this court is necessary and he will have no objection to it. In Civil Misc. Case No. 11 of 1989 which has been filed by the plaintiffs Sri S.L. Verma appearing on behalf of Ram Charan Das opposed the application contending that it was nothing but a political move at this stage and will deprive right of appeal to parties. In Civil Misc. Case No. 11 of 1989 which has been filed by the plaintiffs Sri S.L. Verma appearing on behalf of Ram Charan Das opposed the application contending that it was nothing but a political move at this stage and will deprive right of appeal to parties. Sri V.P. Sharma appearing on behalf of Hindu Maha Sabha opposed the application contending that the transfer of suits to the High Court at Lucknow Bench will involve lot of expenditure and inconvenience to the witnesses as the witnesses are to be examined, commissions are to be issued and as such unnecessary expenses will have to be borne. 9. Learned Advocate General therefore stated before us that the Government undertakes to provide fooding, lodging and travelling expenses of the witnesses including their arrangement for security if the parties have any apprehension for the same. 10. Powers of the court under Section 24 of the C.P.C. are not to be rendered negatory because right of one or two appeals is lost. In suitable cases and situations like the present are the same has rather become necessary for advancing the cause of justice and putting an end to the litigation rotating round the same controversy. 11. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and the pendency of suits for several years and the issue in question which is creating tension between the members of two communities and developing division tendency, we are of the view that the application under Section 24, C.P.C. for withdrawal of suits and its trial and disposal by this court be allowed. 12. Consequently we allow the application for withdrawal of four suits pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Faizabad and direct that they will now be heard and disposed of by this Court. While withdrawing the aforesaid suits from the Additional District Judge, Faizabad and trying the same in the Lucknow Bench of this court, we take notice of the fact that this historic city which is famous throughout the word for its composite culture, softness and sweetness of its language, mild, tender and suave manners has since centuries been free from communal hatred, bias or prejudices. Even during the worst days of communal disturbances which shook the nation in 1947, true to its past tradition, this city remained a glittering example of our democratic and secular outlook. Even during the worst days of communal disturbances which shook the nation in 1947, true to its past tradition, this city remained a glittering example of our democratic and secular outlook. The congenial peaceful and amicable atmosphere of this city is best suited for the trial of such cases. 13. So far as 5th suit filed on July 1, 1989 is concerned, the same is also withdrawn from the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad and the parties may file written statement before this court and the issues may also be framed by this court itself on August 14, 1989. Let files of above mentioned suits be sent by the court concerned under sealed cover with proper security arrangement within a week from the date of receipt of requisition. File of suit No. 226 of 1989 shall be sent by the court concerned by August 10, 1989 along with written statements so filed. The plaintiffs will take immediate steps for effecting service on unserved respondents through registered post and Dasti summons will also be issued by the court without delay for the said purpose. The State Government will make necessary arrangements for the security of witnesses at Lucknow. As the suits have been withdrawn for ending the controversy lingering on, since long, we would like that the cases may be disposed of by a Full Bench of this court and let the papers be placed before Hon'ble Chief Justice for nominating the third Judge who may constitute Full Bench in the case. 14. List all the cases on August 14, 1989.