New Delhi: Supreme Court's hearing in the Ayodhya is on the 22nd day. On Wednesday, advocate Rajiv Dhawan of the Muslim side presented his stand in the court. Dhawan had questioned the claim of the Hindu side that whether people from Lord Ram's side can say that he owns the right over the disputed land? No, they have never been owned there. Rajiv Dhawan said that on December 1949, the idol was illegally kept in the building. This cannot be continued.
Rajiv Dhawan opposed the claim of Nirmohi Akhara's petition saying that the Nirmohi Akhara cannot claim on the disputed land, as the time period for filing the civil suit (Law of Limitation) has gone and they filed the petition later. Dhawan had argued that Nirmohi Akhara filed a civil suit in 1959, about ten years after the statue of Ramlala was placed on the disputed land on 22–23 December 1949, while the time period for filing the civil suit was 6 years.
Let us tell you that Nirmohi Akhara had argued that the Law of Limitation has not been violated in the case of his civil suit, because in 1949 the then magistrate attached the disputed land (in administrative possession) under Section 145 of CrPC. And after that, the magistrate had not given any order regarding that disputed land. Nirmohi Akhara argued that until the magistrate passed the final order. The 6-year limit with the Law of Limitation does not apply.