Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shri Gurudwara Sahib Sidhsar & Another vs Shromani Gurudwara Parbandhak ... on 2 July, 2012
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CIVIL REVISION NO.5199 OF 2011
DATE OF DECISION : 2nd JULY, 2012
Shri Gurudwara Sahib Sidhsar & another
.... Petitioners
Versus
Shromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee & others
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
****
Present : Mr. S. S. Walia, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. P. S. Thiara, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Navjeet Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 11.
****
L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
CR No.5199 of 2011 -2- Plaintiffs have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 05.08.2011 Annexure P-4 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana thereby allowing application of Shromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC)/ respondent No.1 herein for being impleaded as party to the suit which has been instituted by the petitioners against respondents No.2 to 11 as defendants for permanent injunction. Plaintiff-petitioner No.1 is Shri Gurudwara Sahib Sidhsar through its Mohitmim Ikam Singh whereas plaintiff-petitioner No.2 is Ikam Singh himself.
Plaintiffs have sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property i.e. Shri Gurdwara Sahib Sidhsar as detailed in the headnote of the plaint.
Respondent No.1 herein moved application Annexure P-2 for being impleaded as party to the suit alleging that respondent No.1 is owner of the suit property being notified Gurdwara and Ikam Singh plaintiff No.2 is not Mohitmim of plaintiff No.1-Gurdwara and has no right, title or interest in the suit property.
The application was resisted by the plaintiffs by filing reply Annexure P-3 controverting the averments made by respondent No.1 in its application. It was also pleaded that respondent No.1 had earlier filed suit against Randhir Singh etc. which was decreed vide judgment dated 31.03.1975 Annexure P-5 but the decree was never executed. Respondent No.1 again filed a suit under Sections 5 and 6 of the Specific Relief Act against Ikam Singh present plaintiff No.2 and others and the said suit stands dismissed in CR No.5199 of 2011 -3- default vide order dated 05.01.2011 Annexure P-6. Respondent No.1 has filed this application in connivance with defendants. Various other pleas were also raised.
Learned trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-4 allowed application of respondent No.1-SGPC and ordered its impleadment as defendant No.11. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Counsel for petitioners contended that petitioners have filed simple suit for permanent injunction on the basis of their possession and, therefore, respondent No.1, on the basis of its alleged title, is not proper or necessary party to the suit.
On the contrary, counsel for respondent No.1 contended that plaintiff No.1-Gurdwara is a notified Gurdwara and is under supervisory management of respondent No.1-SGPC, although it is actually managed by Local Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee and, therefore, respondent No.1 being necessary party, has been rightly ordered to be impleaded as party to the suit by the trial Court.
I have carefully considered the rival contentions.
Admittedly suit filed by Local Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee was decreed vide judgment dated 31.03.1975 Annexure P-5. Stand of the plaintiffs is that the said decree was never executed. Respondent No.1 in its application Annexure P-2 has also not alleged that the said decree was ever executed. Counsel for respondent No.1, however, submitted that the said decree had been executed, but Local Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee was CR No.5199 of 2011 -4- again dispossessed of the suit property and, therefore, fresh suit was filed by it for possession thereof, which was, however, dismissed in default vide order Annexure P-6. Even if this contention is taken at face value, the fact remains that respondent No.1 or Local Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee is admittedly presently not in possession of the suit property. The present suit has been filed by plaintiffs for simple permanent injunction only. In these circumstances, even if SGPC is assumed to be owner of the plaintiff No.1- Gurudwara for the sake of arguments, even then respondent No.1 cannot be said to be proper or necessary party to the instant suit. Respondent No.1 has to file separate suit for claiming any relief regarding the suit property. Moreover, the decree that may be passed in the instant suit, would not be binding on respondent No.1 if respondent No.1 is not impleaded as party to the suit.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that respondent No.1 is neither proper nor necessary party to the suit. It may be added that even application Annexure P-2 was moved by respondent No.1 more than ten years after the filing of the suit and there is no explanation for this long delay. It has not been alleged in application Annexure P-2 as to how and when respondent No.1 came to know of the pendency of the suit.
Thus impugned order passed by trial court, ordering impleadment of respondent No.1 as party to the suit, is patently perverse and illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. Impugned order Annexure P-4 passed by the trial Court is set aside. Application Annexure P-2 filed by respondent No.1 for being impleaded as party to the suit, is dismissed. However, nothing observed hereinbefore shall have any bearing on merits of rival claims of the parties. CR No.5199 of 2011 -5-
2nd July, 2012 (L. N. MITTAL)
'raj' JUDGE