IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4019 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 20th September, 2011 Gurdwara Sahib Yadgari Patshahi Nauvi … Petitioner Versus Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. H.P.S. Bhinder, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paramjit Singh Thiara, Advocate for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been filed against the order (Annexure P-1) dated 1st April, 2011, passed by Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Commission’) whereby the petitioner has been proceeded against ex-parte. Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a certified copy of the order (Annexure P-1). Counsel has canvassed that having stated in the order that there is justification to give more opportunity, the Commission erred to close the petitioner’s evidence vide order (Annexure P-1). Thereafter, in order (Annexure P-4) dated 1st June, 2011 it was stated that evidence of the petitioner is closed by order. Counsel has further argued that the Commission has passed the impugned orders in a mechanical manner without application of mind. To controvert the above arguments, Mr. Paramjit Singh Thiara, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, states that both the above said orders contain a typographical error. He submits that in the order (Annexure P-1), word ‘no’ is missing and in fact this Civil Revision No.4019 of 2011 (O&M) order should read ‘there is no justification to give more opportunity’. Learned counsel further states that similarly in the concluding portion of order (Annexure P-4) where it is written that ‘as such, the evidence of the petitioner is closed by order’, it should read as ‘as such, the evidence of the petitioner was closed by order’. Be that as it may, without commenting on the errors in the orders assailed, taking into consideration that due opportunity ought to have been granted to the petitioner to ensure fair play and balance of equities, present petition is accepted and the impugned orders (Annexure P-1 and P-4) are set aside. The Commission is directed to afford an effective opportunity to the petitioner to conclude his evidence, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE September 20, 2011 rps 2