New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its order on the politically sensitive Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid case, wrapping up the day-to-day hearings after 40 days.
The apex court granted three days to the contesting parties to file written notes.
The five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had earlier set the deadline to conclude the hearing at 5pm, saying no more time will be granted to parties
The bench, which comprises justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, had also rejected a plea of a party seeking to intervene in the ongoing hearing and said no such interventions will be allowed at this stage of proceedings.
Gogoi is due to retire on November 17 and it is expected a verdict in the Ayodhya dispute would be delivered before that.
High drama
The Supreme Court witnessed high drama during the hearing when an advocate tore apart a map purportedly marking Lord Ram's birthplace.
Rajeev Dhavan, the counsel for the Sunni Waqf Board, tore apart a map that purportedly showed that the birthplace of Lord Ram would have been located in the centre of the now-demolished Babri Masjid.
Dhavan became furious when Vikas Singh, the counsel for the Hindu Mahasabha, sought to present a book to the five-member Supreme Court bench hearing the arguments. Singh sought to present Ayodhya Revisited, a book written by ex-IPS officer Kishore Kunal, which claimed to have evidence that correlated the location of the 'Janmasthan' of Lord Ram at the centre of the Babri Masjid.
Singh said the Hindu Mahasabha wanted to cross-check the evidence on the location of the birthplace of Lord Ram.
As Singh sought to present the book as evidence, Dhavan raised objections and declared he would tear the document and began doing so.
According to media reports, when Dhavan and Singh continued the heated arguments, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi threatened to close the hearing and leave.
Gogoi had declared he intended to read the book presented by Singh “after November”.
Congress leader and senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi criticised Dhavan's conduct. In a tweet, Singhvi noted, “tearing papers given as evidence in the Supreme Court is not befitting of a lawyer. A lawyer's job is to put his best case forward and demonstrate presentation skills. This is unacceptable.”
Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla, the Press Trust of India reported.