Lucknow, September 20
In a curious twist to the Babri title suit judgment, one of the three judges of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court today disagreed with the other two judges’ decision to reject the plea for deferring the Ayodhya verdict.

In his eight-page dissenting note, Justice Dharam Veer Sharma asserted that there was sufficient reason to expect an amicable settlement of the Ayodhya dispute. “I am sorry to state that at the time of passing of the order I was not consulted otherwise I would have given my views to honourable brother judges,” he observed.

Armed with the dissenting note, applicant Ramesh Chandra Tripathi is reportedly planning to approach the Supreme Court asking for deferment of the verdict scheduled to be delivered on September 24.

It may be recalled that on Friday, three applications to defer the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit verdict were rejected by the full division bench of the Allahabad High Court, which included Justice Sharma. Sources said he had withheld his signature to the order and today came out in favour of exploring the possibility of continuing to seek mediation or an out-of-court settlement between the various parties up to September 23 and even beyond the verdict.

According to Justice Sharma’s note, the application for deferment should have been looked from ‘all and any angle’ and the only direction required to be given was that parties were free to resolve the dispute amicably by compromise before the date of delivery of the judgment and that at this stage no interference of the court is required.

“Before the judgment by this court, every endeavour has to be made to settle the dispute as per prayer made by applicant defendant number 17 (Ramesh Chandra Tripathi) and if the issue is settled through compromise, then it shall be in the interest of everybody.”

Defending Tripathi, Justice Sharma also observed that “the matter does not fall within the ambit of any mischief”. He also described as “arbitrary and against the provision of law” the court’s decision to impose “cost” on Tripathi.