CIVIL REVISION NO.8000 OF 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL REVISION NO.8000 OF 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 08.12.2010 Gian Dass & Others .... Petitioners Versus Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL Present : Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Guneet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Legal representatives of Sant Ram Judgment Debtor No.2 (since deceased) have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging order dated 18.09.2010 Annexure P-5 passed by the executing Court i.e. Learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, thereby dismissing objections filed by the petitioners in execution petition instituted by respondent No.1 Decree Holder Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC). Suit filed by respondent No.1 plaintiff under Section 25-A of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (in short, the Act) was decreed by the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, the Tribunal) vide judgment (Annexure P1) and decree dated 04.12.1979 and the same have attained finality. Appeal preferred by defendant Nos.1 and 2 was allowed by this Court, but Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the judgment of this Court and restored the judgment and decree of the Tribunal. Thereupon decree holder respondent No.1 filed execution petition. Petitioners filed CIVIL REVISION NO.8000 OF 2010 -2- objections Annexure P-4 in the execution petition alleging that Hon'ble Supreme Court only decided academic question that Guru Granth Sahib is a juristic person and it can own property in its own name and can sue and be sued but the question regarding the disputed institution being Sikh Gurdwara under the Act or being institution of Udasi Sect has not been adjudicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, decree passed by the Tribunal cannot be executed. It was alleged that decree holder is not in control and management of the suit property which is under the control and management of judgment debtors. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned executing Court vide impugned order Annexure P-5 dismissed the objections filed by the petitioners being frivolous. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners has filed instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in first appeal preferred by defendants No.1 and 2 against judgment and decree of the Tribunal, this Court simply held that Guru Granth Sahib is nor a juristic person and did not decide the appeal on merits and particularly did not adjudicate upon the question whether the disputed institution is a Sikh Gurdwara or is institution of Udasi Sect and same is the position of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, the question whether the disputed institution is Sikh Gurdwara under the Act or is institution of Udasi Sect is required to be adjudicated upon. The contention looks very attractive and forceful on first blush but in fact cannot be accepted being completely devoid of merit. Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 29.03.2000 Annexure P-3 set aside the CIVIL REVISION NO.8000 OF 2010 -3- judgment and decree passed by this Court in first appeal preferred by defendant Nos.1 and 2 and upheld and restored the orders passed by the Tribunal i.e. judgment and decree Annexure P-1 passed by the Tribunal. Consequently judgment and decree Annexure P-1 as upheld and restored by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has to be executed. The question, whether the disputed property is a Sikh Gurdwara under the Act or is institution of Udasi Sect cannot be raised or adjudicated upon in execution proceedings because the Tribunal held the property to be Sikh Gurdwara and passed decree for possession thereof in favour of respondent No.1 decree holder. The said judgment and decree of the Tribunal have been upheld and restored by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Consequently judgment debtors/petitioners have no right to raise the aforesaid objection in the execution petition. For the reasons aforesaid, I agree with the conclusion of the executing court that objections filed by the petitioners are frivolous and meritless. Resultantly the instant revision petition is also frivolous and meritless. To curb such unnecessary frivolous and avoidable litigation, exemplary cost has to be imposed on the petitioners, because the courts are choked with litigation resulting in long delay in disposal of cases and this problem has been compounded by frivolous litigation which requires to be curbed with strong hand. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is dismissed in limine with exemplary cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited by the petitioners with the Registry of this Court within one month from today, failing which the case shall be listed for this purpose. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 08.12.2010 'raj'