2024:PHHC:008381

RSA-6511-2018 (O&M)

1

104-2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

RSA-6511-2018 (O&M)

Reserved on : 10.01.2024

Date of decision : 23.01.2024

Gurdwara Sahib Welfare Society

... Appellant(s)

Versus

Shri Guru Granth Sahib Dera and others

... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present :

Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sammi, Advocate for the appellant.

ALKA SARIN, J.

CM-18297-C-2018

This is an application for condonation of delay of 36 days in

refiling the appeal.

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 36 days in

refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed off.

RSA-6511-2018

1.

The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the

defendant-appellant against concurrent findings returned by the Trial Court

and the First Appellate Court vide judgments and decrees dated 16.02.2015

and 05.03.2018, respectively, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent

Nos.1 and 2.

Yogesh Sharma

2024.01.23 11:48

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/judgment.

High Court Chandigarh

2024:PHHC:008381

RSA-6511-2018 (O&M)

2

2.

Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the suit was filed

by the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the ground that the suit land was

owned and possessed by Guru Granth Sahab (plaintiff-respondent No.1)

under the control and management of Baba Harkirat Singh and incharge of

the dera as well as Guru Granth Sahab. Earlier Baba Daya Singh as well as

his Guru was the Mohtmim and Control Manager and the suit land had been

in regular cultivating possession of Baba Daya Singh. Baba Daya Singh died

on 23.02.2002 and after his death Harkirat Singh (plaintiff-respondent No.2)

became the Mohtmim and Manager of the land. It was further averred that

earlier there was extensive civil litigation and eventually the possession of

the suit land was delivered to the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2. The

defendants had formed an illegal society in the village with a view to grab

the suit land. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant who stated

that Gurdwara Sahib Welfare Society of Village Hulka was managing the

affairs of the Gurdwara and the land. It was denied that Baba Harkirat Singh

was the Mohtmim and Incharge. It was averred that there was a Gurudwara

Sahib Welfare Society in village Hulka which was managing and cultivating

the suit land. The plaintiff-respondent No.2 had no right, title or interest in

the suit land rather he wanted to grab the suit land by stating wrong facts and

the wrong entries existing in the name of Baba Daya Singh in the revenue

record are liable to be corrected. It was averred that vide resolution dated

02.07.2007 Ajmer Singh had been authorized to contest the present suit. The

Trial Court framed the following issues :

(1) Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent

injunction as prayed for ? OPP

Yogesh Sharma

2024.01.23 11:48

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/judgment.

High Court Chandigarh

2024:PHHC:008381

RSA-6511-2018 (O&M)

3

(2) Whether suit is barred by principle of estoppel ?

OPD

(3) Whether suit is liable to be rejected under order 7

rule 11 CPC ? OPD

(4) Whether the suit is liable to be stayed u/s 10 CPC ?

OPD

(5) Whether the suit is barred by principle of

resjudicata ? OPD

(6) Whether suit is not maintainable in the present

form ? OPD

(7) Relief.

3.

The Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence

on the record, decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 16.02.2015.

Aggrieved of the same, an appeal was preferred by the defendant-appellant

which appeal was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment

and decree dated 05.03.2018. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

4.

Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant has contended that

the impugned judgements and de