The Allahabad High Court has dismissed an application filed by Hindu plaintiffs in the Krishna Janmabhoomi dispute that sought the removal of Kaushal Kishore Thakur, also known as Kaushal Singh Tomar, as the “next friend” of the deity, Shri Krishna Lala Virajman, in Suit No. 7.
Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, while rejecting the plea, observed that the reasons cited were not strong enough to justify the removal of a “next friend.” He noted that such an action is a “drastic step” permissible only when it is proven that the representative is acting against the deity’s interest.
Background
Suit No. 7 is one of 18 civil cases linked to the Krishna Janmabhoomi title dispute currently pending before the High Court. In this particular suit, the plaintiffs have sought a declaration of ownership over the disputed land where the Shahi Idgah mosque stands, along with a permanent injunction relating to the property.
The application, filed by the second and fifth plaintiffs, had sought Thakur’s removal under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). They requested that Ajay Pratap Singh be appointed in his place.
Allegations Against Thakur
The applicants alleged that Thakur’s conduct was detrimental to the deity’s interests. They claimed he had filed a separate civil suit in Mathura with advocate Reena N. Singh, and was attempting to undermine the structure of the ongoing case.
It was also alleged that Thakur had been removed from the Yogeshwar Shri Krishna Janamsthan Seva Sangh Trust and was misusing his position as the deity’s representative.
Advocate Reena Singh, appearing for the deity, opposed the application. She argued that under Order 32, Rule 1 of the CPC, a deity is treated as a perpetual minor and must always be represented through a “next friend.” She maintained that Thakur was representing Shri Krishna Lala in his personal capacity as a Vrindavan resident, not as a trustee, and therefore his removal was not justified.
Court’s Findings
After reviewing provisions of Order 32 of the CPC, Justice Mishra pointed out that Rule 9 allows removal of a “next friend” only if the person’s interests clash with those of the minor, if he fails in his duty, or if another sufficient cause is shown.
In this case, the court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that Thakur’s role was contrary to the deity’s interests or that he had neglected his responsibilities.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
