Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 2806
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARCHANA PURI, J.
Thula Tataria Welfare Committee – Petitioner
Versus
Mahant Paramjeet Bharthi & Anr. – Respondents
CR-2740 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 14-02-2023
Mr.N.S.Dandiwal, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 1, Rule 10 - Impleadment - Application for impleadment of the Thula Tataria Welfare Committee as a defendant in a suit regarding possession of a religious dera was dismissed - The committee failed to establish its necessary party status or any connection to the property in question - The appointment of Mohatmim of a dera is governed by custom, with no documentation or explanation provided to support the committee's claim to possession or authority. (Paras 4, 11, 13)
(B) Locus Standi - The petitioner committee could not prove any connection or rights concerning the properties of the dera, thereby justifying the dismissal of their application. (Paras 6, 9, 12)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff challenged the defendant’s claim to being Mohatmim of a religious dera. During the proceedings, the petitioner sought to be added as a defendant, arguing that they were necessary for the administration of the dera.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the committee had no requisite connection or legal standing to be considered a necessary party in the existing suit.
Issues: Whether the Thula Tataria Welfare Committee should be added as a defendant based on their claim of rights to the dera’s management.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that only necessary parties may be impleaded under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, which requires a clear connection to the subject matter.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims and defenses regarding the mohatmim status (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. criteria for determining necessary parties in litigation (Para 9 , 11) |
| 3. dismissal of revision petition for lack of merit (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT
Mrs. Archana Puri, J.
CM-17927-CII-2022
Present application has been filed for placing on record Annexure P-14, which is registration certificate of petitioner-Society.
2. In view of the averments made in the application, same is allowed and the aforesaid document is taken on record.
CR-2740-2022
3. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 05.04.2022 passed by learned Court below, whereby, an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, filed by the petitioner for being impleaded as defendant No.2 was dismissed.
4. That, initially, plaintiff-respondent No.1 Mahant Paramjeet Bharthi, Chela-cum-son of Mahant Sukhdev Bharthi had filed a suit for declaration, thereby, asserting himself to be the Mohatmim (Manager/Incharge) of dera namely Guru Granth Sahib Dera Baba Tatariya and being Mohatim of the dera, he is in possession of the properties as detailed in the headnote of the plaint. Besides the same, also sought declaration that the defendant i.e. Smt.Amandeep Kaur wife of Jagdish Giri, is not Mohatmim of the aforesaid dera and she is not in possession of any part of the dera property. Even, relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from claiming herself as Mohatmim of the aforesaid dera.
5. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the present petitioner-Thula Tataria Welfare Committee had filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for adding President/Secretary, Thula Tataria Welfare Committee, as defendant No.2. It is claimed in the application that applicant is the President of Thula Tataria Welfare Committee, village Charik, which is a registered society and Gurjant Singh is the President and Jasvir Singh is the Secretary of the said Committee. Since, the said Committee is running the dera and holding the whole property, therefore, the dera in question, is under the control of the applicant, therefore said Committee, being Mohatmim of the dera, is the necessary party.
6. However, in reply, legal objection was taken about the applicant-Committee to be having no concern with the property of the dera in question, simply, on account of being registered society, indulging into some kind of religious and social welfare works and by way of registration, it does not become owner or in possession of the suit property. It does not become Mohatmim of the dera, which is regulated by Bhekh community. Even, locus standi to file the application in question, has been disputed. It is denied about the President and Secretary to be necessary party.
7. Also, it is stated in the reply that the applicant has failed to explain, under which law, how and when the applicant became Mohatmim of the dera. Under which law, the said Committee became competent to take possession of the property of Guru Granth Sahib Dera Baba Tataria. As such, a prayer was made for dismissal of the application.
8. As already observed aforesaid, suit had been filed by Mahant Paramjit Bharthi against Smt.Amandeep Kaur, thereby, seeking declaration to the effect that he is Mohatmim of the dera i.e. Guru Granth Sahib Dera Baba Tataria, Village Charik and he is in possession of the properties of the dera. Besides the same, also sought declaration about Amandeep Kaur- defendant to be not Mohatmim of the dera and to be not in possession of the properties of the dera.
9. It is settled that dera is run by its Mohatmim and appointment of the Mohatmim is governed by custom of the dera. There is nothing, as such, coming on record, under what circumstances and in what manner, the petitioner-applicant-Society, became the Mohatmim of the dera or came in possession of the properties of the dera.
10. Reliance has been placed upon Annexure P-12, which is a request by made by several persons to the Gram Panchayat of the concern
