F.A.O. NO. 3420 OF 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. NO. 3420 OF 2010 (O&M) decided on 19.11.2010 Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee .........Appellant Versus S. Surinder Singh .............Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Balwinder Singh Sudan, Advocate for Dr. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate for the appellant. The present appeal has been filed by Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (in short “SGPC”) impugning order dated 14.05.2009 passed by Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission, Amritsar (for short “the Comission”), vide which the petition filed by SGPC under Section 142 of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 (for short “the Act”) has been dismissed, holding the same to be hopelessly time barred. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was an employee of the appellant and worked as patwari. He allegedly caused loss of ` 1,65,755/- to the Gurdwara Sahib in connivance with the Gurdwara committee members. It was this amount, which was sought to be recovered from him. After taking into consideration the evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned commission vide order dated 14.05.2009, dismissed the petition filed by the appellant holding that the same was hopelessly time barred. Along with the present appeal, the appellant has also filed an application under order 41 rules 27 of the CPC seeking permission to produce a letter dated 03.06.2003 in additional evidence. F.A.O. NO. 3420 OF 2010 2 Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the present petition was within limitation period in view of letter dated 03.6.2003, wherein the respondent had himself admitted that the file was with him. He further argued that the learned commission has illegally dismissed the petition on the grount of limitation. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the relevant record. The appellant is seeking to produce in additional evidence, a letter written by respondent, annexed with the appeal as Annexure A-1, vide which it was conveyed that application for obtaining Takhmina Paidawar was lost by Kanoongo and that if required President Gurdawra Sahib Lachru Kalan may be asked. This cannot be said to be admission on part of respondent of money due or of guilt as such. It has not been established that even if this letter is considered, it will take the case of the appellant, any further. Therefore the application for allowing additional evidence is dismissed. As far as the impugned order is concerned, the same does not deserve any interference as the alleged/misconduct of respondent pertains to crop of 1994 and the Secretary, SGPC, asked the appellant about the file firstly on 7.06.2003 vide letter no. 87/2012, that is after about 7 years of incident whereas the limitation for filing petition under Section 142 of the Act is 6 years. It has not been proved by the appellant, as to how the period of limitation can be enlarged in their case. Further the appellant did not take any action against respondent till the filing of petition under Section 142 of the Act, even the Takhmina was not obtained by the appellant after the return of file in the year 2003. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit. Same is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 19.11.2010 JUDGE A.Gupta