Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1313 (PNJ)

Mit Singh v. Kundan Singh

2001-11-23

JASBIR SINGH

body2001
ORDER Jasbir Singh, J. - The present revision petition has been directed against the order dated 22.4.1992 passed by the Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission at Amritsar vide which application of the respondent Kundun Singh under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed. 2. When this case came up for hearing, names of the counsel for the both the parties were shown in the Cause Lists. Even on the last date of hearing, Shri Pritam Singh Baath, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Mr. T.S. Mangat, Advocate and none appeared on behalf of the respondent. On 2.11.2001 also no counsel has turned up. 3. After perusing the order, ground of revision and the order passed by the court below, this court is of the opinion that the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. In this case one application was moved by Ajit Singh under Section 142 of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 (in short "the Act). When the said application was pending Shri Ajit Singh died and the present respondent moved one application with a prayer to implead him as petitioner in the pending litigation. The Commission, then ordered that respondent be substituted as a petitioner in place of Ajit Singh (deceased) and he was allowed to continue with the proceedings. 5. In the grounds of revision petition, it has been stated that once the original petitioner is dead the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is not competent. This contention technically may be correct but in the present case it is not applicable because the present respondent has an independent right to move the application under Section 142 of the Act. In that situation, it makes no difference whether he has been impleaded in place of Ajit Singh (deceased) or application on his behalf could have been taken as a fresh application. The matter pertains to a religious institution. LRs of Ajit Singh have not come forward to continue with the litigation. So under these circumstances, if the respondent is allowed to be proceed with the pending litigation, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner and if the application is not allowed then it definitely be detrimental to the interest of the religious institution. The order passed seems to be a reasoned one. So under these circumstances, if the respondent is allowed to be proceed with the pending litigation, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner and if the application is not allowed then it definitely be detrimental to the interest of the religious institution. The order passed seems to be a reasoned one. No ground is made out to interfere by this court while exercising the limited revisional jurisdiction. In view of the facts stated above, the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Revision dismissed.