- (1.) These two appeals are against two Judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in two separate matters. After hearing the appeals at considerable length, we feel that the matters need further enquiry on disputed questions of fact and evidence which cannot be effectively done by this Court. The case of the appellants is that the respondent committee is trying to recover two sets of properties belonging to two Gurudwaras by using one notification. According to them, their Gurudwara and the properties belonging to them cannot be recovered by the respondent. The appellants tried to produce before us some documents which they came by recently. It is stated that the property belonging to another Gurudwara was the subject matter of litigation which ultimately reached this Court in SLP No. 482 of 1977. The property concerned in that special leave petition has already been recovered by the respondent committee. Without disclosing this, the respondent committee is now trying to recover the properties involved in these appeals also. The appellants wanted to produce documents to satisfy us about the genuineness of their contentions. We felt that on examination of the appellants case so put forward is necessary in view of the disclosures made before us. Normally, we would not have permitted production of documents at this stage and at this distance of time. However, interest of justice demands that a further examination is called for both to get at the truth and consequently to clear the stigma that is attempted to be cast on the respondent committee also. Accordingly, we set aside the Judgment of the High Court under challenge in C.A. No. 17 of 1974 and remit the case back to the Tribunal giving liberty to both sides to produce their documents and evidence in support of their respective contentions.
(2.) In view of this direction, we do not think it proper to pronounce upon the question of law of limitation raised in Civil Appeal No. 905 of 1976. We set aside the Judgment under appeal in this case also, making it clear that the question of law raised is not concluded. We reserve liberty to the parties to re-agitate the question of limitation afresh.
(3.) Both the appeals are disposed of with the above observations. There will be no order as to costs.;