IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.2402/2009 Date of Decision: 30.4.2009. Shri Nanaksar Ashram and others ..........Petitioners. Versus Charan Singh and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.V.S.Rana,Advocate for the petitioners. JASWANT SINGH,J Petitioner nos.2 to 7, who claim themselves to be Trustees of Shri Nanaksar Ashram,VPO Siar,Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana (registered Trust- petitioner no.1), have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the summons (Annexure P-2) vide which the petitioners have been summoned in case titled “Charan Singh and others v. Sh. Nanaksar Ashram and others” pending for 8.5.2009 in the Court of learned District Judge,Ludhiana. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the paper book. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned summons are liable to be quashed as the same have been issued by the learned District Judge without forming a tentative opinion that the application under Section 3 of the Charitable and Religious Trust Act,1920 (for short the Act) moved by the respondents herein relates to a Trust (petitioner no.1) to which CR NO.2402/2009 2 provisions of the Act are applicable and that respondents are interested in petitioner Trust. Reliance has been placed upon Shanti Sarup chela Partap Chand chela Mahal Chand v. Panna Lal Jain and others, 1985 Revenue Law Reporter 514 (P&H). The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are totally misconceived. In para 1 of the present revision petition it is the admitted case of the petitioners themselves that “...the petitioner no.1 is a registered trust and is situated in District Ludhiana and petitioners no. to 7 are its trustees...” It is further borne out from the record that in the year 2005 respondents, who are residents of Village Siar (where petitioner no.1 Trust is situated) filed application under Section 3 of the Act seeking directions to the petitioners to furnish particulars as to nature, object of trust, subject matter of trust and information about income belonging to the trust. A further prayer was made for directing examination and auditing of the accounts of the trust from a Chartered Accountant. The learned District Judge, on receipt of said application caused petitioners to lead evidence, as required under Section 5 of the Act. The respondents examined three PWs on 3.4.2006 and thereafter their evidence was closed vide order dated 15.12.2006. It is thereafter, that vide impugned summons dated 16.7.2008 petitioners were directed to appear in the Court of learned Distt. Judge on 30.8.2008. It is also not disputed that in compliance of the impugned summons, on 30.8.2008 the petitioners (except petitioner no.5) have put in appearance through Sh. A.K. Rana,Advocate and the case was fixed for filing reply by respondents 1 to 6 and service upon CR NO.2402/2009 3 respondent no.7 (petitioner no.5 herein). From the aforesaid facts, it is admittedly the case of the petitioners themselves that they (petitioners 2 to 7) are trustees of petitioner no.1-a registered Trust and respondents being the residents of the Village where the Trust is situated are interested in the affairs of the said Trust. As already noticed above, respondents filed application under Section 3 of the Act seeking directions to the petitioners to furnish particulars as to nature, object of trust, subject matter of trust and information about income belonging to the trust and also for getting the accounts of the trust examined and audited from a Chartered Accountant. The learned Distt. Judge, after recording evidence of applicants (respondents herein) summoned the petitioners. The judgement rendered by a single Judge of this Court in Shanti Sarup's case (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in my opinion, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the reported case the learned District Judge, without complying with the provisions of Section 5 of the Act passed interim order restraining the respondents from alienating or transferring in any manner the property belonging to the trust known as Mandir Jain Dutt Swami. In the present case, as already noticed above, the learned District Judge, in accordance with Section 5 of the Act recorded evidence of three PWs and it is only thereafter that the petitioners were summoned. If the learned District Judge failed to expressly record the reasons for summoning the petitioners, in my opinion, that itself would not be sufficient to quash the impugned summons especially when (i) admittedly petitioners 2 to 7 are the Trustees of petitioner no.1- a registered Trust; (ii) the CR NO.2402/2009 4 respondents being the residents of the same village, where the Trust exists, are very much interested in the affairs of the Trust and (iii) before summoning the petitioners the learned District Judge, in compliance with requirements of Section 5 of the Act, has already recorded evidence of three PWs. No other point has been urged. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed. 30.4.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge