Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee ... vs Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak ... on 4 February, 2020
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.2041 of 2019 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 04.02.2020
Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Gurdwara Manji Sahib
.....Petitioner
versus
Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Teja Singh Samundri
Hall, Amritsar
.....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present: Mr. P.S. Guliani, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. M.S. Virk, Advocate for the respondent
..
ALKA SARIN, J.:
The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for a stay of execution of an ex-parte judgment dated 16.02.2019 and an ex- parte order dated 16.02.2019 passed by the Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission, Amritsar, (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission") whereby a Receiver had been appointed.
Brief facts, relevant to the present case, are that the election of the Committee was held in the year 2005-06. As per the provisions of Section 101 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (for short, 'SGPC') is to call the first meeting of the elected Committee and under their supervision the Members of the Committee are to elect the President, Vice President and each Member so elected would hold office until he resigns or ceases to be a Member. The SGPC is stated to have called the first meeting of the Members 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 23-02-2020 15:32:41 ::: CR-2041-2019 - 2 -
on 08.07.2006. The constituted committee consisted of five members, namely, Rajinder Singh, Kehar Singh, Charan Singh, Gurdeep Singh and Bahadur Singh. Rajinder Singh was elected as President and Kehar Singh was elected as Vice President. It is the case set up by the petitioner that the Committee had been working smoothly for the betterment of the Gurdwara in question without any allegations of misappropriation of funds of the Gurdwara from any quarter. It is further the case set up by the petitioner that on 21.02.2019, the petitioner was shocked to know from an unknown person that a Receiver had been appointed by the Commission vide order dated 16.02.2019. The petitioner, on enquiry, found out that it had been proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 01.07.2017 and thereafter the judgment and order dated 16.02.2019 were passed. The petitioner is stated to have filed an application immediately under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter referred to as the "CPC") for setting aside the judgment dated 16.02.2019 and the subsequent order dated 16.02.2019 whereby the Receiver was appointed. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was accompanied by application for stay. It is further the case set up by the petitioner that despite the pendency of the application before the Commission the Receiver had threatened to take over possession of the Gurdwara in question ignoring the request of the petitioner that the application for setting aside the judgment dated 16.02.2019 along with the stay application was pending.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that till such time the application filed by the 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 23-02-2020 15:32:41 ::: CR-2041-2019 - 3 -
petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte judgment dated 16.02.2019 and order dated 16.02.2019 or at least till such time the stay application is not adjudicated upon the Receiver be restrained from implementing the judgment dated 16.02.2019 and the order dated 16.02.2019 and the said judgment and order be kept in abeyance. It has further been contended that if the aforesaid ex-parte judgment dated 16.02.2019 and order dated 16.02.2019 are executed the remedy availed by the petitioner would be virtually rendered infructuous.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that there is no interim order of stay in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, the Receiver was well within his right to take over the possession and management of the Gurdwara in question.
In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that the petitioner-Committee has been running the Gurdwara since the year 2005-06, the ends of justice would be served by issuance of a direction to the Commission to decide the application for stay within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after hearing the parties. Till then, the judgment dated 16.02.2019 and the order dated 16.02.2019 shall be kept in abeyance.
The revision petition is disposed of with the afore- mentioned directions.
(ALKA SARIN) JUDGE 04.02.2020 parkash NOTE:
Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 23-02-2020 15:32:41 ::: CR-2041-2019 - 4 -
4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 23-02-2020 15:32:41 :::