The response by the lawyers came after Justice HL Gokhale, who was in the Supreme Court bench that deferred the verdict by one week, nudged rival sides to give settlement a chance.
Lawyers representing parties to the Ayodhya title suit case today did not see any hope of reconciliation in the 60-year-old dispute and are rooting for the verdict to be given quickly by the Allahabad high court.
The response by the lawyers came after Justice HL Gokhale, who was in the Supreme Court bench that deferred the verdict by one week, nudged rival sides to give settlement a chance.
"If there is 1% chance, you have to give it (for settlement)," Justice Gokhale said.
But the lawyers were unimpressed with one of them slamming as a "sleeping defendant" petitioner Ramesh Chand Tripathi, a retired bureaucrat, on whose plea one week interim stay was granted by the apex court.
The main contestants to the dispute -- Sunni Central Waqf Board, Ram Janmbhoomi Trust -- and others felt that the interim stay has come in the way of judicial pronouncement which was actually due tomorrow.
The Waqf Board was of the view that there is no chance of reconciliation while the trust was upset with the apex court's order.
Fingers were also pointed at Tripathi with the lawyers saying he was a non-serious party in the case.
However, upbeat with the interim order, Prashant Chandra, the counsel representing Tripathi in the high court, said the decision would help in mediation and settlement of the dispute.
Differing with Tripathi, counsel for Sunni Central Waqf Board Zafaryab Gilani, said, "I don't think that there is any chance of reconciliation. We have been trying it for 19 years. Three prime ministers have been trying it.
Something which was not done in 19 years is not possible in nine days. Specially when the other side is also saying that there is no question of settlement."
Lawyer of Ramjanmbhoomi Trust Ranjana Agnihotri said she was personally "hurt" with the Supreme Court's order.
"All lawyers involved in the dispute have worked with full dedication for the decision. All parties are now interested to hear the judgement. The general populace is now feeling dejected with the Supreme Court's order," she said.
Gilani doubted the intention of Central government and credibility of the petitioner in the entire matter.
"I doubt the bona fide of the central government. How far it is interested in pronouncement of verdict it is to be probed," he said.
Gilani termed Tripathi as "insignificant" person, saying "who is behind him is to be probed."
"I don't find any possibility of reconciliation in seven days. Let's hope judgement is pronounced and the Supreme Court vacates the stay order," he said.
Convenor, Committee on Babri Masjid SQR Illyas said that no plan or scheme has been put before the court as far as negotiation or settlement is concerned.
Illyas said no party was interested in any sort of out of court settlement.
"No scheme has been put before the Supreme Court as to what the parties want, who want to negotiate... Nothing is there in the pipeline. I do not find any party that is saying that it will not abide by the judgement of the court," Illyas said.
The counsel representing 'Lord Rama' deity Ajay Pandey termed Tripathi as "sleeping defendant" and said he would not be able to find settlement through negotiation even in one year.
"Nowhere he stated (in petition) who are interested in negotiation. What to talk of a week, he cannot find solution in one year," he said, alleging that the petitioner was lying before the apex Court and others.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}