FAO No.1492 of 2005 - 1 – IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.1492 of 2005 DATE OF DECISION: 03.02.2010 **** Hazoor Singh . . . . Appellant VS. Sardar Major Singh and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Ms.Shweta Bawa, Advocate for Ms.Sushma Chopra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.S.S. Mattewal, Advocate for the respondents. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. This appeal is directed against order of the Sikh Gurdwara, Judicial Commission, Amritsar (for short ‘the Commission’), whereby an application, filed under Section 142 of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 (for shot ‘the Act’) by the appellant against the respondents, has been dismissed by the Commission on 30.11.2004. The allegations contained in the application, filed under Section 142 of the Act, are of malfeasance and misfeasance on the part of the respondents. FAO No.1492 of 2005 - 2 – The learned Commission, while appreciating evidence on issues No.1 and 2, returned the following finding: - “Both these issues are inter-connected and to avoid any repetition we take both these issues collectively. The onus to prove these issues was upon the petitioner. The allegations in the petitioner is that the respondents have caused a loss of Rs.69.34,073/- to the Gurdwara funds. The petitioner himself stepped into witness box to prove these issues and also proved documents Ex.P1/1 i.e. jamabandi for the year 1995-96 and some affidavits which are Mark-A to Mark-D and closed his evidence. No other evidence or document to prove the allegations leveled in the petition are produced. On the other hand, the respondents No.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 examined eight witnesses and proved documents Ex.R1 to R.125. Respondent No.4 appeared as RW9 himself and closed his evidence. The main allegations in the petition against the respondent is that the Gurdwara land is not auctioned openly. To met this allegations, the respondents produced RW2 Gurdev Singh, RW7 S. Gudial Singh and RW6 Baljit Singh lessees who took over the land of the gurdwara on lease and they categorically stated in their statements that the land was openly auctioned and given to the higher bidder. Munadi and pamphlets for the open auction were published. This fact was also corroborated by RW Gurcharan Singh Gurdwara Inspector whose supervision the auction was held. The another allegation in the petition is letting of shop on rent. To meet out this allegations, the respondents produced RW3 Abhei Ram one of the tenant of shop No.23. FAO No.1492 of 2005 - 3 – He stated that he took the shop of the Gurdwara on rent in the year 1987 and he paid rent of the shop every month. He also shown receipts in the Court, issued by the grudwara committee. As such, the respondents explained auction proceedings and rent of shops. Another allegation was regarding the payment of Rs.4073/- to a cloth merchant. It is admitted fact that the alleged payment was made during the pendency of the case. Another allegations which was leveled in the petition was that the respondent No.2 Member of the local gurdwara committee and the respondent No.6 manager of the local gurdwara committee are real brother. The respondent No.6 as RW1 stated that he is manager of the gurdwara committee much before the constitution of the present committee in which his brother resp. no.2 was elected as member. Another allegation is that the resp. No.1,2,3,5 and 6 are not calling the resp. no.4 in the meeting or any other proceedings or management of the gurdwara. The respondent No.4 appeared as witness as RW9 and admitted his signatures at least 7-8 times when he remained present and signed the proceedings. Similarly, there are allegation that the respondents in connivance and collaboration with each other have shown to have spent Rs.70,000/- for langer which was prepared and distributed in the Sangat in a nager kirtan which was organized from village chika to gurdwara Sahib pehowa in connection with the three hundred years of Birth of Khasla Panth in march, 1999. Another allegations is that the respondents in connivance and in collusion with each have collected the wheat and paddy at the time of harvesting i.e. Haari and Sawani each year at the time of harvesting i.e. Harri and Sawani each year in the name of the Gurdwara for its use from the worshippers, devotees and Sikh Sangat but instead the respondents have jointly sold the same in the FAO No.1492 of 2005 - 4 – Mandi which yielded about Rs.2,50,000/- for each crop of wheat and paddy. The sale price received has been misappropriated by them. The petitioner has not produced any evidence to prove these allegations but explained by the respondents by leading evidence and documents. The petitioner has not produced any evidence to corroborate his statement nor he has produced any documents to prove the allegation leveled in the petition. On the other hand, the respondents have categorically explained all the allegations leveled against them in the petition by producing oral as well as documentary evidence on the file. As such, the petitioner has failed to prove these issues. Hence, these issues are decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents.” Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that finding recorded by the learned Commission is patently illegal but she has miserably failed to refer to any evidence on record which has either been misread or is sufficient for the Court to take a contrary view in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. She has failed to find fault with the finding of fact recorded in issues No.1 and 2 by the Commission. As no meaningful argument has been raised before this Court, thus, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed though without any other as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) February 03, 2010 JUDGE vivek