Darshan Singh and Others vs Gurbachan Singh and Others

S.K. Gupta, J.—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/Respondent's 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.

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 u/s 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 defendant's 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.

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.

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-petitioner's committee has boon nominated by the Sangat as is explicitly delineated in the application

u/s 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 u/s 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-respondent's 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.

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.

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.