IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.352 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.1.2010 Gurudwara Baba Hast Lal Parbandhak Committee ....Appellants Versus Bhupinder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. K.K.Saini, Advocate for the appellants. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M.No.954-C-2010 Allowed as prayed for. R.S.A.No.352 of 2010 (O&M) The instant appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgments of the learned trial court dated 19.9.2008 and that of the first Appellate Court dated 18.11.2009. The plaintiff-appellants claim themselves to be the members of Ramdasia community and pleaded that only this community was entitled to take care of the affairs of Gurudwara Hast Lal Balala and that they have formed Gurudwara Baba Hast Lal Parbandhak Committee and had been taking care of this gurudwara from the last many years. It is further pleaded that there are two other Gurudwaras in the village which have been taken care of by the members of other R.S.A.No.352 of 2010 (O&M) -2- communities and since the appellants are not being permitted to take care of Gurudwara Baba Hast Lal, they have filed the instant suit. The plea was resisted by the respondent-defendants who pleaded that no permanent injunction could be granted to the plaintiff- appellants as the same is not permissible under law. It is the plea of the respondents that the people of all the castes and religions take care of Gurudwara Baba Hast Lal. The learned trial court had framed the following issues on the pleadings of the parties:- 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether suit is not maintainable?OPD 3. Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 4. Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit?OPD 5. Whether suit is barred u/o 1 Rule 8 CPC and Section 91 CPC?OPD 6. Relief. Both the courts below concluded that there is no evidence to show that the plaintiff-appellants were ever involved in taking care of the affairs of the Gurudwara, which has resulted in filing of the regular second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that there is overwhelming evidence in the shape of testimony of PW1 to PW4, who have supported the case of the appellants, and therefore the R.S.A.No.352 of 2010 (O&M) -3- courts below have gone wrong in recording a finding against the appellant. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the contentions which have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The testimony of PW2, PW3 and PW4 has rightly been discarded by the courts below. PW2 Ram Singh in his testimony has stated that he had merely put his signatures on the affidavit and that the contents of the same were not read over to him. PW3 Gurdial Singh stated that he is a resident of village Ropalon and was not a summoned witness and in his cross-examination he deposed that he does not know who had filed the instant suit and has no personal knowledge regarding the affairs of the Gurudwara. Similarly, PW4, Kewal Krishan also testified that he has no knowledge about the management and affairs of Gurudwara Baba Hast Lal. In this view of the situation, by merely making statements by these witnesses that the affairs of the Gurudwara were being managed by Ramdasia Committee cannot be accepted and therefore the courts below have rightly discarded their evidence. Besides, plaintiffs No.3 to 6 have not stepped into the witness-box leaving the court to examine the oral testimony of the plaintiff-appellants and the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses whose credibility is seriously under cloud. No documentary evidence was produced in support of the assertions made by the plaintiff-appellants that they had been managing the affairs of Gurudwara Baba Hast Lal since the last 40 years. In the absence of any documentary evidence and in view of the R.S.A.No.352 of 2010 (O&M) -4- uninspiring oral evidence before the courts below, the concurrent findings recorded by them cannot be termed to be perverse or erroneous so as to warrant any interference by this court. No substantial question of law is shown to have arisen in the instant appeal. Appeal dismissed. Consequently, the stay application is also dismissed. 27.1.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss