Gurdwara Sri Sukhmani Sahib Vs Jagdev Singh

Prayer in the present civil revision petition is for setting aside the order dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby an application submitted by the petitioner for directing the Civil Ahlmad to trace out the document Ex.PW1/4 i.e. a Three-Members Committee Report; has been disposed of by observing that the same is to be proved by way of secondary evidence.

¶15

Briefly, petitioner-Gurdwara Sri Sukhmani Sahib filed a suit for recovery of Rs.32,08,327/- alongwith pendente-lite and future interest against the respondent herein (Shri Jagdev Singh), inter alia on the plea that Shri Jagdev Singh was the President of Gurdwara Sri Sukhmani Sahib,

¶16

DINESH 2026.07.08 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CR-9304-2025 (O&M) -2-

¶18

Urban Estate, Phase II, Ludhiana; from the year 2004 up to 2013 and in April 2013, the elections were held wherein one Arvinder Singh Sandhu was elected as the President of the aforesaid Gurdwara. It is pleaded that when Shri Arvinder Singh Sandhu sought accounts/records from Shri Jagdev Singh, he did not give the records/documents to the plaintiff and postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. However, subsequently after repeated requests, only some of the records were given. It is further pleaded that the Executive Committee of the petitioner-plaintiff constituted a ThreeMembers Committee on 16.06.2018 to check account records given by Shri Jagdev Singh. The said Sub-Committee is stated to have submitted its report on 06.07.2018 from which it was revealed that huge embezzlement of funds had been done by Shri Jagdev Singh (as detailed in para 6 of the plaint). Accordingly, the aforesaid suit for recovery was filed.

¶19

2.1. The aforesaid suit was contested by respondent-Jagdev Singh by filing his written statement/amended written statement, to which the petitioner-plaintiff filed its replication. 3. From the pleadings of the parties, the issues have been framed and the evidence was led by the petitioner-plaintiff. 4. It appears that during the course of trial, the petitioner- plaintiff submitted an application before the learned trial Court for issuing directions to the Civil Ahlmad to trace out the document Ex.PW1/4 i.e. a ThreeMembers Committee Report, which was constituted to ascertain the embezzlement during the tenure of Shri Jagdev Singh. The said application

¶20

DINESH 2026.07.08 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CR-9304-2025 (O&M) -3-

¶22

has been decided by the learned trial Court vide the impugned order dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure P-1), the relevant extract of which reads as under:-

¶23

“ 9. Since, the concerned the then Civil Ahlmad Sh. Balwinder Kumar, has already stated that he tried his best to trace out Ex.PW1/4, but document could not trace out. Therefore, I do not deem it fit to issue further directions against him to trace out the said document. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of, with the liberty to applicant/plaintiff to prove the allege document Ex.PW1/4 i.e. three members committee report, by way of secondary evidence or by placing on record original document. Separate letter to Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana be also written regarding loss of abovesaid document from the judicial file. The case now stands adjourned to 01.12.2025 for plaintiff’s evidence.”

¶24

Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure P-1), the present civil revision petition has been filed before this Court.

¶25

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper-book with his able assistance.

¶26

On 11.12.2025, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana to make earnest and thorough efforts to trace the document Ex.PW1/4 (Three-Members Committee Report) and further to determine the responsibility of the official who was the custodian of the document, prepare a detailed report in that regard, and furnish the same to this Court. It appears that in compliance of the aforesaid direction issued by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2025, a

¶27

DINESH 2026.07.08 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CR-9304-2025 (O&M) -4-

¶29

report was received from the learned District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, which stands recorded in the order dated 28.01.2026 and the matter was adjourned to 07.04.2026.

¶30

7.1. On 07.04.2026, the following order was passed:-

¶31

“ Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not aware of any order passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, regarding the reconstruction of the document.

¶32

Accordingly, the learned District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, is once again directed to submit a report within a period of two months from today with regard to the reconstruction of the document, in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court. It is further directed that upon receipt of the report from the concerned officer, a copy thereof shall also be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶33

Awaiting the further report, adjourned to 02.07.2026.

¶34

Interim order to continue.”

¶35

Now, the learned District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana has forwarded the report dated 29.05.2026 submitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Ludhiana, vide her letter No. 2416/G, dated 01.06.2026, the relevant extract of which reads as under:-

¶36

“ Subject: Loss of document from civil suit titled as “Gurudwara Sri Sukhmani Sahib Sewa Society Vs. Jagdev Singh” bearing CIS No.CS/4882/2018, pending in the Court of Sh. Rajan Aneja, CJJD, Ludhiana.

¶37

Re: Report in CR-9304-2025 pending for 02.07.2026.

¶38

Sir,

¶39

Kindly refer to Hon’ble High Court letter No.CIVIL/69277/2026 dated 17.04.2026 w.r.t. order dated

¶40

DINESH 2026.07.08 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

CR-9304-2025 (O&M) -5-

¶42

07.04.2026 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CR-93042025, whereby undersigned is directed to submit a report within two months from order dated 07.04.2026 with regard to reconstruction of document i.e. Three Members Committee Report Ex.PW1/4 from the file titled as “Gurudwara Sri Sukhmani Sahib Sewa Society Vs. Jagdev Singh”, in civil suit bearing CIS No.CS/4882/2018 pending in the Court of Sh. Rajan Aneja, CJJD, Ludhiana.

¶43

2. I have the honour to submit herewith a report bearing No.216 dated 29.05.2026 as submitted by Sh. Rajan Aneja, Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana, in compliance with order dated 07.04.2026 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CR-93042025, wherein the Officer submitted that statements of the then Ahlmad Sh. Balwinder Kumar, previous Ahlmad Ms. Chanpreet Kaur, present Ahlmad Ms. Shubhangi, plaintiff representative, previous counsels, Local Commissioner and other concerned persons were recorded.

¶44

The Officer has reported that the plaintiff had tendered as many as 194 documents in evidence, all of which were photocopies and even in the statement recorded at the time when document in question was tendered, it was mentioned that original seen and returned. As such stand taken by plaintiff during reconstruction that original of lost document was exhibited seems highly improbable.

¶45

It is further submitted by the Officer that earlier counsel for appearing on behalf of plaintiff as well as the Local Commissioner had categorically stated that the original document was produced at the time of evidence and was returned to the plaintiff, after comparison of same with a photocopy tendered in evidence. However, despite stand taken by his own counsel and specific query put by the Court in this

¶46

DINESH 2026.07.08 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶47

CR-9304-2025 (O&M) -6-

¶48

regard, in pursuance of directions of the Hon’ble High Court, the plaintiff failed to produce either the original document or even a photocopy thereof. Further, even the members of the committee whose report was allegedly exhibited as Ex.PW1/4 expressed their inability to produce any copy of the same.

¶49

The officer has concluded that despite exhaustive and sincere efforts made to reconstruction of the ibid document from all available sources, neither the original document Ex.PW1/4 (Three Member Committee Report) nor photocopy, draft, duplicate or any other secondary material thereof could be procured for its reconstruction.

¶50

3. Copy of report submitted by the Officer annexed herewith for kind perusal of Hon’ble High Court.

¶51

Submitted please.

¶52

Yours faithfully,

¶53

District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana”

¶54

Today, the aforesaid report(s) were shown to the learned

¶55

counsel for the petitioner in the Court itself and the matter was passed-over.

¶56

9.1. When the matter was taken up in the second round, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid report(s), this Court may pass an appropriate order.

¶57

I have perused the paper-book as well as report(s) placed on the record.

¶58

It is apparent from the report that the concerned officer has submitted the statements of the then Ahlmad Sh. Balwinder Kumar, previous Ahlmad Ms. Chanpreet Kaur, present Ahlmad Ms. Shubhangi, representative of the plaintiff, previous counsels, Local Commissioner as well as other

¶59

DINESH 2026.07.08 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶60

CR-9304-2025 (O&M) -7-

¶61

concerned persons. It is reported that the petitioner/plaintiff had tendered as many as 194 documents in evidence, all of which were photocopies and when the aforesaid documents were tendered, at that time the statement was recorded that the original have been seen and returned. In this view of the matter, it has been reported that the stand taken by the petitioner that the original of the lost document was exhibited is highly improbable.

¶62

That apart, even the counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff as well as the Local Commissioner had categorically stated that the original document was produced at the time of evidence and was returned to the petitioner/plaintiff, after comparison of same with the photocopy tendered in evidence. It has also been reported that despite the aforesaid stand taken by the petitioner’s own counsel and also a specific query being put by the Court, the petitioner-plaintiff failed to produce either the original document or even a photocopy thereof. Furthermore, even the members of the committee, whose report was allegedly exhibited as Ex.PW1/4, are also stated to have expressed their inability to produce any copy of the same.

¶63

12.1. It is thus apparent that despite sincere efforts made by the concerned officers/Court to reconstruct the document Ex.PW1/4 (a ThreeMembers Committee Report) from all available sources, the same could not be procured for its reconstruction.

¶64

During the course of hearing of this petition, a specific query was raised to the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff as to whether he has any photocopy of the so-called Ex.PW1/4 (a Three-Members Committee

¶65

DINESH 2026.07.08 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶66

CR-9304-2025 (O&M) -8-

¶67

Report), however, he has responded that they have not kept any photocopy of the original with them. The aforesaid stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff appears to be doubtful as no prudent person would tender/submit any document to any person/authority, let alone the Court, without keeping a copy thereof for his own records.

¶68

Be that as it may, in the attending circumstances, I see no error in the impugned order dated 21.11.2025 whereby the petitioner-plaintiff has been granted liberty to prove the alleged document Ex.PW1/4 (a ThreeMembers Committee Report) by way of secondary evidence or by placing on record original document. Resultantly, the instant civil revision petition is dismissed.

¶69

Before parting with this order, it is required to be noticed that going by the statements which have been recorded by the concerned Courts/officers to the effect that the original of the document in question i.e. Ex.PW1/4 (a Three-Members Committee Report) was seen and returned to the petitioner-plaintiff and only a photocopy of the same was retained on the file, it would still be a matter of concern as to why the said photocopy of the said document is missing from the record. The said lapse is required to be enquired into; therefore, let a fact finding enquiry be got conducted by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in this regard, so as to fix the responsibility of the official(s) responsible as regards the missing document (Ex.PW1/4) and submit a report to the Registrar General of this Court within a period of three months from today.

¶70

DINESH 2026.07.08 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶71

CR-9304-2025 (O&M) -9-

¶72

A copy of this order be also forwarded to the Hon’ble Administrative Judge of District Ludhiana.

¶73

(HARSH BUNGER) 02.07.2026 JUDGE dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶74

DINESH 2026.07.08 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gurdwara Sri Sukhmani Sahib v. Jagdev Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdwara Sri Sukhmani Sahib v. Jagdev Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virender Alias Virender Kalron and Others Vs Satish and Others

Jaypee Group, Himalayan Expressway Ltd. Vs Surinder Singh and Others

Karamjit Singh and Others Vs Gurmail Singh and Others

Hr Consultancy Company Vs Surender Singh District M.C Sirsa

Vijay Kumar Vs Veena Rani and Others

Charno Kaur Vs Balbir Kaur and Ors.