NEW DELHI/LUCKNOW: The Allahabad High Court will deliver its verdict in the 60-year-old Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit on Thursday after the Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the path by dismissing a petition for its deferment ending the uncertainty.

A three-judge Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court will pronounce the verdict in the Ayodhya case on September 30 at 3.30 p.m., the officer on special duty, Mr Hari Shankar Dubey said in Lucknow, shortly after the apex court lifted its week-long interim stay given last Thursday.

The SC’s three-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, Mr Justice S H Kapadia gave a brief unanimous order dismissing the petition by a retired bureaucrat Mr Ramesh Chandra Tripathi challenging the Lucknow bench order rejecting his plea for postponing the keenly waited judgment to explore the possibility of mediation.

The bench also comprising Mr Justice Aftab Alam and Mr Justice K S Radhakrishnan however did not give any reasons for its order giving the green signal for the High Court verdict after two hours of arguments.

"Having considered in detail the arguments of the parties, we are of the view that the SLP has to be dismissed. Accordingly, the SLP stands dismissed," it said.

During arguments on the special leave petition, the bench questioned the plea for deferment of the verdict.

"You are running against time because you woke up late. That is after 50 years," Mr Justice Alam said.

"The question is why you were quiet for all these days. You had to strike a chord when the matter was in the High Court," Mr Justice Alam said.

The observations by the bench came when senior advocate Mr Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Mr Tripathi, was buttressing the argument that a settlement could be arrived at through negotiations.

Answering the bench for the delay in exploring an out-of-court settlement, Mr Rohatgi said mediation was not a part of the statute.

Mr Justice Alam said lawyers of all the contesting parties are at least in agreement on the issue of delivery of judgment by the Allahabad High Court.

The September 30 date fixed by the Lucknow bench assumes importance since one of the judges of the three-member bench, Mr Justice D V Sharma, is to demit office on October 1. The other judges in the bench are Mr Justice S U Khan and Mr Justice Sudhir Agarwal.

Earlier, the Attorney-General, Mr G E Vahanvati, who was asked by the apex court to assist it in Tuesday’s hearing, said that uncertainty should not be allowed to continue.

The SC decision was welcomed by the main contesting parties to the title suit as well as the Centre and all political parties including the Congress, the BJP and the Left.

Appealing for calm, the government and the political parties said the High Court verdict should be respected.

"We welcome the (SC) verdict" was the refrain of all sections.

Mr Vahanvati said the most preferred solution to the Ayodhya problem would be settlement but it has not taken place and the uncertainty which is prevailing should not be allowed to continue.

"This has been the view of the Centre and this is my view also," he said.

"Settlement, if there is any possibility, we welcome it but we do not want any uncertainty," the AG said.

Since 1999, the stand of the Union government has been for settlement which has not taken place, he said.

"We would like a resolution of the matter in one way or the other. We cannot keep the law and order machinery in sustained animation," Mr Vahanvati said.

Counsels pleading for deferment of the verdict said the court and the government could try innovative approach to evolve an out-of-court settlement.

However, counsels for all the parties to the dispute except Nirmohi Akhara opposed the plea for deferment.

They said judicial function cannot be made a hostage to the negative consequences, which have been cited by Mr Tripathi.

Amplifying his arguments, Mr Vahanvati said "My position is very clear. I am of the view for implementation of the decision of the suit. This is what we have to do as per the mandate of 1994".

Mr Vahanvati said this while making a reference to the verdict of the constitutional bench on the land acquisition at the disputed site in Ayodhya.

He refuted the allegations of Mr Rohatgi that the Centre sat meekly and only stood as a receiver of the disputed land.

Mr Vahanvati said the government was committed to maintain the rule of law and was under obligation of the undertaking given by it to the apex court on September 14, 1994 that it will make attempts to resolve the issue through continuous negotiations.

The Attorney General also countered the allegations of Mr Rohatgi that it was not "pro-active" in attempting to resolve the dispute through settlement and process of negotiation.

He said the government believed in respecting the rule of law. He also countered the argument that the tenure of one of the retiring judges could be extended as the Centre has no power in this regard, which is vested with the Chief Justice of the High Court and only to a certain extent recommendations can be made by the apex court collegium.

Advocate Mr Sushil Kumar Jain, appearing for the Nirmohi Akhara, said the local population of Ayodhya was for the negotiated settlement but the problem was arising due to the interference of the outsiders and political parties.

He said the akhara was not for the deferment sine die but for a time-bound adjournment of the verdict.

Opposing the plea of Mr Tripathi, a counsel for the Sunni Wakf Board said his petition was motivated and should not be entertained at this stage.

The lawyer contended that there must be an element of settlement which is acceptable to all the parties to resolve the dispute "and sadly, this is missing here".