Punjab-Haryana High Court
Thula Tataria Welfare Committee ... vs Mahant Paramjeet Bharthi And Anr on 14 February, 2023
Author: Archana Puri
Bench: Archana Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:027257
111
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-2740-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision: February 14, 2023
Thula Tataria Welfare Committee through its Secretary
...Petitioner
AND
Mahant Paramjeet Bharthi and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI
Present: Mr.N.S.Dandiwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
ARCHANA PURI, J.
CM-17927-CII-2022 Present application has been filed for placing on record Annexure P-14, which is registration certificate of petitioner-Society.
In view of the averments made in the application, same is allowed and the aforesaid document is taken on record. CR-2740-2022 Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 05.04.2022 passed by learned Court below, whereby, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, filed by the petitioner for being impleaded as defendant No.2 was dismissed.
That, initially, plaintiff-respondent No.1 Mahant Paramjeet Bharthi, Chela-cum-son of Mahant Sukhdev Bharthi had filed a suit for declaration, thereby, asserting himself to be the Mohatmim 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 29-05-2023 13:32:27 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:027257 CR-2740-2022 -2- (Manager/Incharge) of dera namely Guru Granth Sahib Dera Baba Tatariya and being Mohatim of the dera, he is in possession of the properties as detailed in the headnote of the plaint. Besides the same, also sought declaration that the defendant i.e. Smt.Amandeep Kaur wife of Jagdish Giri, is not Mohatmim of the aforesaid dera and she is not in possession of any part of the dera property. Even, relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from claiming herself as Mohatmim of the aforesaid dera.
During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the present petitioner-Thula Tataria Welfare Committee had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for adding President/Secretary, Thula Tataria Welfare Committee, as defendant No.2. It is claimed in the application that applicant is the President of Thula Tataria Welfare Committee, village Charik, which is a registered society and Gurjant Singh is the President and Jasvir Singh is the Secretary of the said Committee. Since, the said Committee is running the dera and holding the whole property, therefore, the dera in question, is under the control of the applicant, therefore said Committee, being Mohatmim of the dera, is the necessary party.
However, in reply, legal objection was taken about the applicant-Committee to be having no concern with the property of the dera in question, simply, on account of being registered society, indulging into some kind of religious and social welfare works and by way of registration, it does not become owner or in possession of the suit property. It does not become Mohatmim of the dera, which is regulated by Bhekh community. Even, locus standi to file the application in question, has been disputed. It 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 29-05-2023 13:32:28 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:027257 CR-2740-2022 -3- is denied about the President and Secretary to be necessary party.
Also, it is stated in the reply that the applicant has failed to explain, under which law, how and when the applicant became Mohatmim of the dera. Under which law, the said Committee became competent to take possession of the property of Guru Granth Sahib Dera Baba Tataria. As such, a prayer was made for dismissal of the application.
As already observed aforesaid, suit had been filed by Mahant Paramjit Bharthi against Smt.Amandeep Kaur, thereby, seeking declaration to the effect that he is Mohatmim of the dera i.e. Guru Granth Sahib Dera Baba Tataria, Village Charik and he is in possession of the properties of the dera. Besides the same, also sought declaration about Amandeep Kaur- defendant to be not Mohatmim of the dera and to be not in possession of the properties of the dera.
It is settled that dera is run by its Mohatmim and appointment of the Mohatmim is governed by custom of the dera. There is nothing, as such, coming on record, under what circumstances and in what manner, the petitioner-applicant-Society, became the Mohatmim of the dera or came in possession of the properties of the dera.
Reliance has been placed upon Annexure P-12, which is a request by made by several persons to the Gram Panchayat of the concerned village, to constitute a committee of Thula Tataria. There is also Annexure P-13, which is a request made by Sarpanch to the Deputy Commissioner, District Moga, with regard to the termination of Baitimam, about the land of Thua Tataria of village Charik.
On query put by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 29-05-2023 13:32:28 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:027257 CR-2740-2022 -4- was unable to explain, under what circumstances, Gram Panchayat can interfere in the affairs of the dera and as to whether, Deputy Commissioner also had any power, with regard to the termination of Baitimam, as per the request made vide Annexure P-13. Besides these documents, there is nothing, as such, coming on record, as to when and how and under what circumstances, the petitioner came to be in possession of the suit property. Since, the Committee, as such, had no role to play in the administration of the dera, therefore, it is not a necessary or essential party, to adjudicate on the controversy of the lis in hand. The question of impleadment of a party, has to be decided, as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, which provides that only a necessary party or property party, should be added. Impleadment can be ordered by the Court, when it finds that in the absence of the applicant, seeking impleadment, as party to the suit, the controversy raised in the suit, cannot be effectively and completely adjudicated.
As already observed aforesaid, nothing specific, despite having been pointed out by the Court, has been brought on record, by learned counsel for the petitioner, thereby, showing the present petitioner, to be a necessary party, to adjudicate, on the controversy, in hand.
Considering the same, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
February 14, 2023 (ARCHANA PURI)
Vgulati JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:027257
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 29-05-2023 13:32:28 :::