Civil. Revision No.6611 of 2010(O&M) #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.6611 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision:-11.03.2011 Jatinder Singh. ......Petitioner. Versus Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission Amritsar & Ors. ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate for the Petitioner. *** JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL) C.M. No.26184-CII of 2010 Allowed. Filing of certified copies of Annexures is exempted. C.R. No.6611 of 2010 Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the order dated 29.01.2010(P-7) vide which the respondent no.1 has dismissed the restoration application moved by the petitioner being not maintainable. Facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the petitioner being an elected member/Ex-Vice President of Gurdwara Committee, Gurdwara Nanaksar, Verka, Tehsil and District Amritsar, had filed a petition under Section 142 of Sikh Gurdwara Act against respondent no.2/President of same Gurdwara Committee before respondent no.1 i.e. Civil. Revision No.6611 of 2010(O&M) #2# Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) on 23.11.2004, regarding misappropriation & mis- utilization of the funds of Gurdwara Sahib. Issues were framed on 25.04.2005. It is apparent that the petitioner despite availing many adjournments could not complete his evidence within a period of next two years and 10 months and when the case was fixed on 17th of March 2008 for cross examination of the petitioner, the same was dismissed in default for his non appearance. Thereafter petitioner moved an application dated 19.03.2008 for restoration of the aforesaid petition, which was also dismissed in default on 23.12.2008. On 20.01.2009, the petitioner again moved an application for restoration of the application dated 19.03.2008. However, the said application was also dismissed in default on 04.12.2009. Lastly the petitioner moved an application on 04.12.2009 for restoration of the application dated 20.01.2009, but finding no justification therein, the same was dismissed by the Commission. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders passed by the Commission are illegal and liable to be set aside. He further submits that his applications dated 04.12.2009 should have been decided on merits as the courts by adopting a hyper technical approach should not let shut out litigants from getting their disputes decided on merits. After giving my anxious thought to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner I am unable to accept the plea of the petitioners. It is apparent from the record, that dispute is raised between two office bearers of the local Gurdwara Committee. The petitioner had been totally lackadaisical in his approach in pursuing the the petition as in almost three years while availing sufficient opportunities, the petitioner was Civil. Revision No.6611 of 2010(O&M) #3# unable to conclude his evidence. Still further perusal of the impugned order reveals that after dismissal of the petition, petitioner moved applications one after the another i.e. total three in number, out of which two were dismissed in default and third one was dismissed being not maintainable vide impugned order dated 29.1.2010 (P-7). It seems that the petitioner was habitual of remaining absent from the proceedings before the Commission and grossly negligent in pursuing his petition. The explanation of his counsel for his non appearance on the aforesaid dates has also not been found adequate by the learned Commission-respondent no.1. In such circumstances, I am of the view that no ground exists which may warrant interference by this court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE March 11, 2011 Vinay