GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE Vs. S UJAGAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 1036 and 1038 of 1989 directed against the order dated January 20, 1988 passed by the Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission, Amritsar (for short 'the Commission' ). A petition under Section 142 of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 filed by Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Heran pending before the Commission was dismissed in default on September 18, 1986. An application for restoration of the said petition was filed on September 20, 1986 through Malkiat Singh, Manager. This application was contested by the respondents on merits. A preliminary objection was also raised about the maintainability of the petition inasmuch as it was contended that Malkiat Singh had not been authorised by the Committee to move the application for restoration of the petition. Some evidence was recorded in the application but no finding was recorded on the merits thereof. The application was, however, dismissed without going into its merit on the ground that it had not been filed by a duly authorised person and the Gurdwara Parbandhak Commitee did not give its consent for filing the same or authorised Malkiat Singh for the purpose.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the finding as recorded by the Commission is wrong inasmuch Malkiat Singh had been authorised to move the application for restoration vide resolution No. 12 dated September 12, 1986 passed by the Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Heran. A copy of this resolution has been filed on the record of the petition as Annexure P-3.

(3.) AFTER Rearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that Malkiat Singh had been authorised by Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Heran to file applications in cases 10 and 29 of 1980 pending before the Commitee. This resolution of the aforesaid Commitee, which was produced before the Committee, was ignored by observing that the Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee never considered the dismissal of the petitions in a duly convened meeting of the Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee and authorised Malkiat Singh to file the present applications which were filed on September 20, 1986. It is not necessary that a person must be authorised to move applications for restoration after dismissal of the main petitions. A person may have been authorised earlier to move petitions or to file applications and based on that authority, the authorised representative can very well move applications for restoration. It is precisely what has happened in the present case. Malkiat Singh had been authorised on September 12, 1986 to file applications, to certify, to give affidavits, to defend these cases and to do necessary expenses including engaging lawyers etc. Thus, whether Malkiat Singh appeared in the case prior to the date of moving the applications or not before the Commission could not be taken to be valid ground for coming to the conclusion that he was not authorised to move applications for restoration. Above being the situation, it cannot be said that the applications were not filed by a duly authorised person.