1. The petitioners, out of whom two are practicing advocates of this court, profess faith in Granth Sahib and Ten Gurus-the core of Sikh religion. They have challenged the constitutional validity of some provisions of the Sikh Gurudwara and Religious Endowment Act. 1973 (hereinafter the Act) as well as some Rules made thereunder. All other reliefs which they have claimed flow from this relief. They have filed this writ petition not only on their own part but also on behalf of the entire Sikh community for which they have also made a separate application under order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission of the court to sue the respondents as such. This is CMP No : 122 of 1978. Respondent No : 2 alone has filed objections to this application, which are to the effect, that neither the petitioners have any individual right to file the writ petition, nor the provisions of order 1 Rule 8 are attracted to it.

2. Mr. Amarchand appearing for respondent No: 2 has during the course of arguments confined his resistance to the prayer of the petitioners to two grounds only. One, that in no case could order 1 Rule 8 apply to writ petitions, and two, that on the specific allegations made in the petition this provision would not be attracted to the present case, assuming that it was otherwise applicable to writ petitions. Two questions which, therefore, fall for consideration are

(i) are the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 applicable to writ petitions ? and

(ii) if so, whether they are attracted to the peculiar facts of this case ?

3. Sec. 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down that the procedure provided in the code for suits shall, as far as possible apply to all proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction. Authorities are legion that a writ petition brought to enforce a civil right is a proceeding in a court of civil jurisdiction. The High Court of Punjab in Sona Ram and ors. Vs. Central Government through the Secretary of Rehabilitation, Government of India, AIR 1963 Punjab 510 has after noticing a number of authorities on the point held as under:-

"(5) The relevant section for our present purpose is Section 141 of the Code, which runs thus: -

"The procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of Civil Jurisdiction".

Now it is to be seen whether the writ proceedings in this court are proceedings in a court of civil jurisdiction. If that be so, then by virtue of the provisions of Sec. 141 of the Code the procedure provided therein in regard to suit shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, for their disposal. When can a court in any proceedings be called a Court of civil jurisdiction. The language employed in this section shows that when a court is trying a suit then that Court can be called a Court of Civil Jurisdiction, in other words, if any other proceedings are before a Court, which are in the nature of a suit, then that Court can be called a Court o" civil jurisdiction. The point then arises, whether it can be said that the writ proceedings are in the nature of a suit. Any proceedings in a Court of law brought to vindicate or enforce a civil right would fall within the word sue (see in this connection Province of Bombay Vs. Khushal Dass S. Advani, AIR 1950. SC 222). It is manifest that in a suit civil rights are involved and, therefore, the proceedings therein are of a civil nature. In other words they can be termed as civil proceedings. Are the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution civil proceedings? In my opinion, if in a petition under Article 226 civil rights are involved, then the proceedings would be civil proceedings, but, on the other hand, if the proceedings do not involve such rights, then they cannot be termed as such. It follows, therefore, that in writ petitions, where civil rights, are involved, the proceedings are in the nature of a suit and by virtue of the provisions of Sec. 141 t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document