Sharomani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee vs Jathedar Harkiat Singh and Others

R.N. Mittal, J.—This revision petition has been filed by the Shromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, defendant No.2, against the order of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Ambala, dated 22nd April, 1983.

Briefly the case of the plaintiff is that the Gurdwara situated at Nada Sahib is a historical Gurdwara and was founded in the memory of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, 10th Guru. The plaintiff is in possession of the Gurdwara an had been managing it according to the Guru Mariada. He is in peaceful possession of the property and maintaining regular accounts of the income and expenditure.1t is alleged that the defendants threatened to dispossess the petitioner forcibly. Consequently he filed a suit for permanent injunction that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the possession and management of the plaintiff.

The suit was resisted by the defendants who controverted the allegations of the plaintiff and inter alia pleaded that the Gurdwara is a Scheduled Gurdwara entered at No.250 in Schedule I of the Sikh Gurdwara Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was notified as a Sikh Gurdwara u/s 3(2) of the Act vide notification dated 11th July, 1959. Later a notification u/s 5(3) of the Act was also issued as no claim was made under sub-section (1) by any person. It is further averred that a Comm ittee Was constituted to manage the Gurdwara u/s 88(3) of the Act which is a statutory body and has a right to manage the Gurdwara. The defendants also pleaded that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Several other pleas were taken but they are not relevant for the purpose of decision of the revision petition. On the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court the trial Court framed issue No.2 which is as follows:

Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit.

The issue was treated as preliminary issue by the Court and it was decided in favour of the plaintiff by the impugned order. Defendant No.2 has come up in revision to this Court.

The only question that arises for determination is whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the sit. Section 36 of the Act provides that no suit shall lie in any Court, to question anything purporting to be done by the State Government or by a Tribunal in exercise of any powers vested in it by or under the Act. From a reading of the section it is evident that if anything has been done by the State Government under the Act, the Civil Court cannot go into the correctness or propriety of such an act. The Gurdwara has been entered as Scheduled Gurdwara and has been declared as Sikh Gurdwara u/s 3(2) by a notification dated 11th July, 1959 by the State Government. No claim thereafter was filed u/s 5(I) by any person against the Gurdwara. Therefore the state Government published a notification u/s 5(3) specifying the right and title of the Gurdwara in the property. After the issuance of the notification the property vested in the petitioner. It is the petitioner which under the Act has got the right to manage Scheduled Gurdwaras and their properties. In order to manage them, it constitutes Committees u/s 87 and 88 of the Act. The petitioner for the purpose of managing the Gurdwara in dispute and its properties constituted a Committee and issued a notification dated 20th February, 1965. After the Constitution of the Committee, it is the right of that Committee, to manage the Gurdwara and its properties. In the present suit, the plaintiff-respondent is impliedly challenging the aforesaid notifications. Such a suit is clearly barred u/s 36 of the Act. Therefore, in my view the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the sit.

For the aforesaid reasons, I accept the revision petition, set aside the order of the trial Court and hold that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The trial Court is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff. In the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.