IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A.No.73 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.7.2009 Dera Manji Sahib Baba Thaman Singh ......Appellant Vs. The State of Punjab and others. ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.P.K.Palli, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Vishal Goel, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. AG, Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr.S.S.Narula, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge rejecting the application for substitution of legal heirs of the writ petitioner only on the ground that there was delay of 10 years in making the application. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was a religious endowment. The earlier Mahant Ujjagar Singh having died on 29th October, 1994, the Management Committee was not aware about the L.P.A.No.73 of 2008 2 pendency of the writ petition. Dismissal of the petition was on the ground that application for substitution of legal heirs was not made within time. Even if no application was made, the Court should not have dismissed the writ petition. The main petition was against the declaration of the petitioner religious endowment as Sikh Gurudwara which was required to be decided on merits. 3. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 opposed the prayer by submitting that the applicant Managing-Committee had no locus, apart from there being gross delay. 4. It is well settled that power of Writ Court is not limited by procedural provisions like abatement and Court can adopt fair procedure. Even after delay, substitution of legal heirs can be allowed to advance the cause of justice. The Court has also to be conscious that proceedings after long delay may affect vested rights. Thus, all these considerations have to be carefully weighed. Reference may be made to law laid down in Puran Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1996(2) SCC 205 and Commissioner of Endowments and others vs. Vittal Rao and others 2005[4] SCC 120. Punjab amendment to Order 22, Rule 3 C.P.C provides that there is no abatement by not making application for substitution of legal heirs. 5. We are of the view that it will be appropriate if the merits of the controversy are gone into. Question whether the management has the locus standi to represent the religious endowment can also be gone into. 6. In absence of any other claim, the applicant could be substituted without prejudice to objection to its locus to represent the original petitioner being decided. L.P.A.No.73 of 2008 3 7. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is restored to its number. 8. The same may be accordingly listed before appropriate Bench, as per roster. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) July 07, 2009 JUDGE raghav Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter ........Yes/No