GOGOI HAS DATE WITH HISTORY

After 40 days of hearing, the Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved the judgement in the 70-year-old Ayodhya title dispute case.Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi had set a 5 pm deadline for the conclusion of the arguments. However, the arguments ended an hour earlier.

Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court had made it clear that it will conclude on Wednesday the day-today hearing in the politically sensitive case, saying "enough is enough".

CJI Gogoi is set to retire on November 17 and the verdict can be expected before that.

There was some drama when Rajiv Dhavan, appearing for the Muslim side, tore a pictorial map identifying the birthplace of Lord Ram submitted by a senior counsel representing the All India Hindu Mahasabha.

This act did not go down well with the bench, and the Chief Justice expressed his anguish.

"The Supreme Court should not rely on this book," Dhavan said, requesting permission to tear it up. "You do what you want," replied Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi. "You can shred it further," he then said. After the pages were torn, interruptions from both sides and the commotion angered the judges. "Decorum has been spoiled, decorum is not maintained. If proceedings continue in this manner, we would just get up and walk out," said the Chief Justice. Later, Dhavan complained to the top judge that the "news that I am tearing papers is going viral". "I wanted to throw it away. The Chief Justice said I can tear it," Dhavan pointed out. "The news of tearing is going viral. We have seen it," Justice SA Nazeer said.

In another notable exchange, Dhavan described the argument of PN Mishra, the

lawyer for the Hindi petitioners, as "foolish". "Mr Mishra's argument is next to foolish. Please sit down. He doesn't know. It is not personal," Dhavan said.

In the first half of the day, Hindu parties argued and urged the court to correct the historical wrong since a mosque has been built on a site considered holy by Hindus. In turn, Dhavan said that the Muslim parties are seeking restoration of Babri Masjid as it stood on December 5, 1992. "The demolished building belonged to us.

The right to reconstruct it also belongs to us. Nobody else has the right," he submitted.

Senior advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan -- representing the Hindu side -- contended that there could be some evidence that the Muslim side offered Friday prayers at the disputed site between 1857 and 1934. "But there is absolutely no evidence that they offered any prayer after that. On the other hand, Hindus continued to worship .... Muslims did not have exclusive possession on the disputed site," said Vaidyanathan. He reminded the court that Hindus do not have a site which could be treated as birthplace of Lord Ram.

VHP international president Vishnu Sadashiv Kokje on Wednesday expressed hope for a "favourable" verdict, hours after the court reserved its order.

The court now has asked counsel from both sides to submit their written submissions on the moulding of relief in the matter.

Sunni Waqf Board has offered to drop its claim to disputed site; site can be made available elsewhere for mosque.