Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. Vide Punjab Government notification dated 10.7.1959, Gurdwara Sahib Patashai Naumi was declared to be Sikh Gurdwara. Vide notification dated 22.3.1960, in terms of the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), a consolidated list of rights, title and interest was issued in respect of rights, title and interest vesting with Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar in respect of the said Gurdwara. 2. One Mahant Basant Singh made a petition before the State Government and claimed ownership of the properties mentioned in the consolidated list. The same were referred to Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal under Section 14 of the Act. The said petition was dismissed by the Tribunal on 18.12.1962. The Tribunal declared that the Gurdwara Sahib Patashai Naumi entered at No. 343 of Schedule-I annexed to the Act was the owner of the whole land as also of the muafi land, respectively, entered in para 2 and 3 of the consolidated list. Mahant Basant Singh filed an appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal before this Court. The appeal was dismissed on 27.2.1973. Thus, the plaintiff claimed that he has become entitled to claim possession of the property and that Mahant Pritam Singh, Chela of Mahant, the present appellant is in illegal possession of the Gurdwara. 3. Earlier, the plaintiff filed a suit for possession before Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal as contemplated under Section 25-A of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 . However, the said suit was dismissed as abated. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed suit for possession before the Civil Court on 26.11.1974. The suit has been decreed by the Courts below. The issue raised by the defendant-appellant before the Courts below was that once the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff before the Tribunal in terms of Section 25(A) of the Act has been dismissed as abated, the present suit for possession is not maintainable. However, the Court granted decree, inter alia on the ground that the suit for possession before the Tribunal was filed by the Local Committee of the Gurdwara whereas the present suit has been filed by Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee and, therefore, is competent to file the present suit. However, the Court granted decree, inter alia on the ground that the suit for possession before the Tribunal was filed by the Local Committee of the Gurdwara whereas the present suit has been filed by Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee and, therefore, is competent to file the present suit. The Courts also held that since the pleadings of the previous suit are not on record, therefore, the order of dismissing the said suit, Ex.P11 would not operate as resjudicata so as to bar the plaintiff from filing the present suit for possession. 4. The Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal has decided a petition field on behalf of Basant Singh wherein it was held that Gurdwara vests with Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee. Once that finding has attained finality, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to pass a decree for possession in favour of Committee of Gurdwara in terms of Section 25-A of the Act. Under Section 28 of the Act, the suit for possession of undisputed property of Notified Sikh Gurdwaras is maintainable before the principal court of original jurisdiction within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of such notification. Sections 25-A and 28 of the Act read as under:- "25-A. Power of tribunal to pass decrees for possession in favour of the committees of Gurdawaras.- (1) When it has been decided under the provisions of this Act that a right, title or interest in immovable property belongs to a Notified Sikh Gurdwara, or any person, the Committee of the Gurdwara concerned or the person in whose favour a declaration has been made may, within a period of one year from the date of the decision or the date of the constitution of the Committee, whichever is later, institute a suit before a tribunal claiming to be awarded possession of the right, title or interest in the immovable property in question as against the parties to the previous petition and the tribunal shall, if satisfied that the claim relates to the right, title or interest in the immovable property which has been held to belong to the Gurdwara, or the person in whose favour the declaration has been made, pass a decree for possession accordingly. 28. 28. Suits for possession of undisputed property of Notified Sikh Gurdwaras.- (1) When a notification has been published under the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 5 or the sub-section (3) of Section 10, the committee of the gurdwara concerned may bring a suit on behalf of the gurdwara for the possession of any property a proprietary title in which has been specified in such notification, provided that the gurdwara concerned is entitled to immediate possession of the property in question, and is not in possession thereof at the date of the publication of such notification. (2) The suit shall be instituted in the principal court of original jurisdiction in which the property in question is situated within a period of ninety days from the date of the publication of such notification, or from the date of the constitution of the committee, whichever is later, and if a suit is not instituted within that period no subsequent suit on behalf of the gurdwara for the possession of the property shall be instituted in any court except on the ground of the dispossession of the gurdwara after the date of the publication of such notification." 5. The Courts below have decreed the suit for possession, inter alia, on the ground that the remedy on suit for possession contemplated under Section 25-A of the Act is summary proceedings and will not bar the filing of the suit for possession before the Civil Court. Reliance was placed upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as Chanan Singh V/s. Smt. Majo and Anr., (1976)78 P.L.R. 726 as well as the judgment reported as Mt. Nazir Begam V/s. Ghulam Qadir Khan and Ors., A.I.R. 1938 Lahore 84. Thus, the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration:- "1. Whether the dismissal of the suit as abated by the Tribunal under Section 25 of the Act bars the plaintiff to file a suit for possession of the same subject matter of the property? 2. Whether the suit by Sikh Gurdawara Parbandhak Committee would be maintainable once the suit by Local Committee in respect of the same subject matter of the property stood dismissed as abated by Sikh Gurudwara Tribunal?" 6. 2. Whether the suit by Sikh Gurdawara Parbandhak Committee would be maintainable once the suit by Local Committee in respect of the same subject matter of the property stood dismissed as abated by Sikh Gurudwara Tribunal?" 6. In Chanan Singhs case (supra) a petition under Section 12 of the Redemption of Mortgage (Punjab) Act, 1913 before the Collector for redemption of the land was held to be not final but is subject to a suit before the Civil Court which could be filed within one year of the order passed by the Collector by any person aggrieved. The reliance on the said judgment is wholly misconceived. Under the scheme of the said Act, the Collector has been conferred power to summarily decide the claim of the redemption of mortgage. Still further, the Act itself provides that the decision of the Collector can be challenged before the Civil Court within one year of the decision of the Collector. Thus, the liberty has been given in the Statute itself to approach the Civil Court. Therefore, there is no parity with the scheme of the said Statute with the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925. 7. In Nazir Begam s case (supra), the dispute was whether the suit is governed by the provisions of Section 25-A of the Act in the view of the amendment during the pendency of the matter before the Tribunal. The case is clearly distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. The reference may made to the judgment reported as Mamo and Anr. V/s. Committee of Management Shri Gurdwara Sahib and Ors., (2000)2 Supreme Court Cases 130 wherein the Court was discussing the scope of Section 28 of the Act. It was held that under Section 28 of the Act, the suit for recovery of possession of undisputed property on behalf of notified Sikh Gurudwara can be filed under the aforesaid provisions of law. It was held that Section 28(2) has three limbs. It was held that under Section 28 of the Act, the suit for recovery of possession of undisputed property on behalf of notified Sikh Gurudwara can be filed under the aforesaid provisions of law. It was held that Section 28(2) has three limbs. The first provide that a suit shall be instituted in the Principal Court of jurisdiction in which the property in question is situated, the second prescribes a period of limitation of 90 days for bringing the suit and the third declares the consequences of failure to institute a suit within said period of 90 days and mandates no subsequent suit on behalf of Gurdwara for possession of the property shall be instituted in any Court except on the ground of dispossession of Gurdwara after the date of publication of such notification. It was held that for a suit based upon such dispossession no period of limitation is prescribed under the Act and it will be governed by Indian Limitation Act. 8. Keeping in view the principles of law laid down by the said judgment, it is apparent that the suit in respect of which the Tribunal has passed a decree, suit has to be filed within one year in terms of Section 25-A of the Act. Such suit was filed but dismissed as abated. Once the suit is dismissed as abated under the provisions of Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no fresh suit can be brought on the same cause of action. Section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplates that where the plaintiff is precluded from instituting a further suit in respect of any particular cause of action, he shall not be entitled to institute a suit in respect of such cause of action in any Court to which this Code applies. The proceedings of Tribunal are to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in terms of Section 12(11) of the Act. Therefore, the suit of possession having been dismissed as abated, the plaintiff was not competent to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgments reported as State of Maharashtra and Anr. Therefore, the suit of possession having been dismissed as abated, the plaintiff was not competent to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgments reported as State of Maharashtra and Anr. V/s. M/s National Construction Company, 1996(1) Apex Court Journal 54 (S.C.), N.C. Channabasappa V/s. Assistant Education Officer;5 1992 Civil Court Cases 400 (Karnataka) and Committee of Management for Gurdwara Nankana Sahib V/s. Hira Dass, A.I.R. 1936 Lahore 298 to contend that where the suit is dismissed on defect, it is not dismissed on merits and it is not the case of res judicata, 10. The said argument is not applicable in the facts of the present case. The competent Court of jurisdiction, the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal has dismissed the suit as abated. The said suit was Statutory remedy conferred under Section 25-A of the Act. Once such suit has been dismissed as abated, therefore, in terms of Order 22 Rule 9 read with Section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff is precluded from bringing any fresh suit on any cause of action before any other Court to whom the Code of Civil Procedure applies. It is not the plea of res judicata which is being raised by the defendant-1 appellant but that the suit is not maintainable as the first suit was dismissed as abated. 11. The reasoning given by the Courts below that the pleadings of the previous suit are not available on record in the present case. Therefore, it cannot be said that the present suit is barred. It is admitted fact that the suit in respect of the same subject matter of property was dismissed as abated. Even if it is presumed that such suit was not filed, the plaintiff could seek possession by instituting the suit in terms of Section 25-A of the Act only within one year of the order of the Tribunal. The Special Act is complete Code and has provided for adjudication of rights including provided right of appeal, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Act alone could be invoked for possession of the property. 12. The Special Act is complete Code and has provided for adjudication of rights including provided right of appeal, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Act alone could be invoked for possession of the property. 12. Therefore, it is not open to the plaintiffs to seek possession from the Civil Court in respect of the subject matter of the property for which claim is maintainable before the Tribunal and in fact invoked for and on behalf of the plaintiff. Thus, it is held that the plaintiff has got no right to file a suit for possession before the Civil Court after the same was dismissed as abated. 13. The Courts below have relied upon Section 125 of the Act to hold that the local committee has failed to take steps to seek possession, therefore, Sikh Gurdawara Prabandhak Committee who has control and general superintendence over all committees appointed under the provisions of the Act, therefore, the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit. The dispute in the present case is not that whether the Sikh Gurdawara Parbandhak Committee was competent to file a suit but the question is whether the suit filed by the Local Committee having been dismissed as abated in respect of the same property whether the Sikh Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee could file a separate suit for possession in respect of said property. 14. The Local Committee has filed the suit for possession before the Tribunal. If such Local Committee has failed to discharge its responsibility, it was open to the Sikh Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee to take action against the Local Committee or to seek setting aside of the order of abatement. But once the competent authority with whom the property of Gurdwara is vested failed in its suit for possession, it was not open to them to file another suit before the Civil Court. 15. Since the Local Committee was competent to file a suit for possession and, in fact, filed such suit for possession though such suit has been dismissed as abated, the Sikh Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee is not entitled to file a separate suit for possession. It is held that the suit of the Sikh Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee in respect of the same subject matter of the property is not maintainable. Consequently, even the second substantial question of law is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. 16. It is held that the suit of the Sikh Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee in respect of the same subject matter of the property is not maintainable. Consequently, even the second substantial question of law is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. 16. In view of the above, the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court is set aside while allowing the appeal. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed as not maintainable with no order as to costs.