Allowed

Gurdwara Sahib Yadgari Patshahi Nauvi v. Shiromani Gurwara Parbandhak Committee & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Sept 2011CR/4019/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside orders passed by the Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission that erroneously closed the petitioner's evidence without hearing, directing the Commission to afford an effective opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; Commission directed to afford effective opportunity to petitioner to conclude evidence upon payment of Rs.5,000/- costs.

Gurdwara Sahib Yadgari Patshahi Nauvi Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Revision No.4019 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 20^th September, 2011

¶3

Gurdwara Sahib Yadgari Patshahi Nauvi

¶4

… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee and others

¶7

… Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶9

Present: Mr. H.P.S. Bhinder, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paramjit Singh Thiara, Advocate for the respondents.

¶10

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

¶11

Present revision petition has been filed against the order (Annexure P-1) dated 1^st April, 2011, passed by Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Commission’) whereby the petitioner has been proceeded against ex-parte.

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a certified copy of the order (Annexure P-1). Counsel has canvassed that having stated in the order that there is justification to give more opportunity, the Commission erred to close the petitioner’s evidence vide order (Annexure P-1). Thereafter, in order (Annexure P-4) dated 1^st June, 2011 it was stated that evidence of the petitioner is closed by order. Counsel has further argued that the Commission has passed the impugned orders in a mechanical manner without application of mind.

¶13

To controvert the above arguments, Mr. Paramjit Singh Thiara, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, states that both the above said orders contain a typographical error. He submits that in the order (Annexure P-1), word ‘ no ’ is missing and in fact this

¶14

¶15

Civil Revision No.4019 of 2011 (O&M)

¶16

order should read ‘ there is no justification to give more opportunity ’. Learned counsel further states that similarly in the concluding portion of order (Annexure P-4) where it is written that ‘as such, the evidence of the petitioner is closed by order’ , it should read as ‘as such, the evidence of the petitioner was closed by order’ .

¶17

Be that as it may, without commenting on the errors in the orders assailed, taking into consideration that due opportunity ought to have been granted to the petitioner to ensure fair play and balance of equities, present petition is accepted and the impugned orders (Annexure P-1 and P-4) are set aside. The Commission is directed to afford an effective opportunity to the petitioner to conclude his evidence, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-.

¶18

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE

¶19

September 20, 2011 rps

Gurdwara Sahib Yadgari Patshahi Nauvi v. Shiromani Gurwara Parbandhak Committee & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdwara Sahib Yadgari Patshahi Nauvi v. Shiromani Gurwara Parbandhak Committee & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Taj Ali ( Neela) and Anr. Vs Barkate Alias Saida and Ors.

Sukhminder Kaur Vs Nirmal Singh etc.

Amar Singh Vs Dhan Singh and Ors.

Ram Narain & Ors. Vs Pryag Bansal & Anr.

Chotta Ram Vs Chameli Devi & Ors.

Manjit Kaur Vs Gurdial Kaur and Others