Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 135 (JK)

Darshan Singh v. Gurbachan Singh

2003-05-14

S.K.GUPTA

body2003
Through the currency of this revision the petitioners-respondents seek the reversal of the order dated 27.09.2000 propounded by City Judge Jammu whereby the petitioners/Respondents application for reference of a dispute to the Board in invoking the provisions of S. 8 of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred as `The Act) and staying the proceedings in the suit stood rejected. 2. It appears that in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction commenced by the plaintiffs-respondents in refraining the defendants-Petitioners from interfering in the management of the plaintiffs-respondents over Gurudawara Sahib Shri Guru Singh Sabha, Gole Gujral, Jammu and dispossessing the plaintiffs-respondents from the possession of the Gurudawara and removing the golak from Gurudawara the defendants-petitioners were put to notice at the first instance. The defendants-petitioners instead of filing the written statement initiated an application under section 8 of the Arbitration Act in seeking reference of the dispute regarding the Gurudawara to state Gurudawara Parbandak Committee for arbitration as provided under R-64 of the J&K Sikh Gurudawaras Religious Endowment Rules-1975 (hereinafter referred as the `rules). It was also stated that in view of the statutory clause introduced in the rules and the plaintiffs-respondents claiming to be the nominees of D.G.P.C and managing the affairs of the Gurudawara, they cannot maintain the suit in their own right. However, after inviting objections from the plaintiffs-petitioners and hearing the parties the trial court found that the provisions of R-64 are attracted only where the dispute over the property or offerings exists between two committees constituted under the gurudawara Act. The trial court further found that the defendants-petitioners having accepted the petition that the defendants committee has been appointed by the Sangat and consequently Rules 64 of the Gurudawara Endowment Rules will not apply to the case which entailed the rejection of the application and penultimately became the subject matter of challenge in this revision. 3. I have heard the rival contentions put-across by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and persued the order impugned in revision in context with the relevant provisions of the Rules, 1975, J&K Sikh Gurudawara Endowment Act, 1973 and the rules made thereunder amended upto February 1997, touching the matter in controversy. 4. 3. I have heard the rival contentions put-across by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and persued the order impugned in revision in context with the relevant provisions of the Rules, 1975, J&K Sikh Gurudawara Endowment Act, 1973 and the rules made thereunder amended upto February 1997, touching the matter in controversy. 4. The admitted position emerging out of the pleadings of the parties in this case is that the plaintiff-respondents committee has been appointed by the District Gurudawara Parbandak Committee for running the management and affairs of Gurudawara Guru Singh Sabha located at Gole Gujral, Jammu. It is also not disputed that defendant-petitioners committee has been nominated by the Sangat as is explicitly delineated in the application under Section 8 of the Act. This makes it clearly manifest that both these committees are not constituted under the Sikh Gurudawaras and Religious Endowment Act 1973. The word `Committees has been defined in Section 2(b) of the J&K Sikh Gurudawars and Religious Endowment Act 1973. For the facility of reference the definition of a committee under Section 2(b) in verbiage is-reproduced as under:-- "Committes means Gurudawara parbandak committee of a Sikh Gurudawra or a group of Gurudawars constituted under this Act." Mr. V.R. Wazir Advocate appearing for the respondents vehemently urged that only that dispute over the property or offerings is referable to the Board and thus attracts the provisions of R-64 of the Rules. His further submission is that the plaintiff-respondents committee having not been appointed under the J&K Sikh Gurudawras and Religious Endowment Act, 1973 but by District Committee constituting the act has nominated the plaintiffs for the management of the Gurudawra Shri Guru Singh sabha, Gole Gujral, Jammu and the defendants-petitioners having claimed to be appointed by the Sangat clearly shows that it is not constituted under the J&K Sikh Gurudawras and Religious Endowment Act, 1973 and thus remained out of the preview of R-64 of the Gurudawara Endowment Rules. I find merit and substance in the submissions made by Mr. Vaid Raj Wazir, the learned counsel, for the respondents. It therefore follows that R-64 contemplates only those disputes which have arisen between the committees constituted under the Act. 5. Mr. K.S. Johal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the defendants-petitioners committee was appointed by a Sangat of Gole Gujral to manage the affairs of the Gurudawara. Vaid Raj Wazir, the learned counsel, for the respondents. It therefore follows that R-64 contemplates only those disputes which have arisen between the committees constituted under the Act. 5. Mr. K.S. Johal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the defendants-petitioners committee was appointed by a Sangat of Gole Gujral to manage the affairs of the Gurudawara. He further submitted that in case any dispute arises between the committees that is to referable under R-64 of the Rules made under the Gurudawara Act to the Board and the decision of the Board shall be final. It is pertinent to point out that when the Act and the rules are there, everything must be in accord with it and the management of the Gurudawaras must define the object of the Act. So the arguments of Mr. Johal that the Gurudawara Singh Sabha is being managed by the Sangat directly is not tenable in view of the Scheme of the Act. The committee therefore appointed by the Sangat cannot, by any stretch of reasoning be said to be a committee appointed by Gurudawara Parbandak committee and therefore does not fall within the purview of a committee in Section 2(b) of the Gurudawara Act. The view expressed by the trial court that the dispute having not arisen between the committees constituted under the Act, is not referable under Rule 64 of the Rules of J&K Sikh Gurudawaras & Religious Endowment Rules, 1975, framed under the Gurudawaras Act of 1973 to the Board, is a view to which no exception can be taken. 6. In view of the above I do not find any infirmity legal or factual in the order impugned necessitating interference of this court in revision. The revision therefore possessing no merit is hereby dismissed. Record shall be remitted back to the trial court forthwith where the parties shall cause their appearance on 9.6.2003.