J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar dated 16th January, 1988 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for substituting him in place of Partap Singh receiver of the Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (for short 'the Committee').
(2.) The Managing Committee, Shri Guru Teg Bahadur High School filed a suit for declaration through Shri Paramjit Singh its member. The said suit was decreed ex parte by the trial Court on 23rd July, 1980. An application under Order 9 rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed by the Gurdwara Committee Tharrah Sahib of village Hazara through Sardar Ajit Singh, its President. One of the issues framed in the application was, as to whether the applicant has locus standi to move the application. The trial Court found that it has not been proved on the record that Sardar Ajit Singh is the President of the Committee and, therefore, he has got no locus standi to file the present application. Consequently, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 22nd July, 1985. Against the said order of the trial Court, an appeal was filed by the Committee through its receiver Shri Partap Singh. Therein an application was filed by the general attorney Mangat Singh that he be substituted in place of Partap Singh receiver as he has been removed by the competent authorities by order dated 31st March, 1987. That application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 16th January, 1988 on the ground that at no stage Partap Singh was substituted as receiver in place of Sirdar Ajit Singh the President of the Gurdwara Committee. Partap Singh who has now filed this appeal as a receiver of the appellant Gurdwara Committee was thus not a party to the proceedings before the trial Court. There is no order in regard to his substitution in place of Sardar Ajit Singh, the President of the Gurdwara Committee and therefore, Gurdwara Committee was not competent to file the present appeal through Sardar Partap Singh who never figured as a party to the proceedings before the trial Court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Partap Singh was no more the receiver and he was removed vide order dated 31st March, 1987. The Gurdwara Committee in whom the property has vested was entitled to be substituted through its general attorney Sardar Gurcharan Singh Bedi. According to the learned counsel, the whole approach of the learned Additional District Judge in this behalf was wholly wrong and illegal. In any case argued the learned counsel that these matters could be decided only in appeal, if he could be substituted in place of Sardar Partap Singh who was no more the receiver of the said property after 31st March, 1987.;