SUKHDEV MUNI Vs. KEWAL DASS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is a challenge to an order passed by the trial Court in the petition filed by the defendant in suit, who is the present petitioner, for rejection of a plaint.

(2.) The contentions raised before me to assail the order are that the plaintiffs do not have locus standi to file the suit and seek for any permission under Sec. 92 CPC, since plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 are Sikhs and do not come within the Udasian Sect who claim themselves as followers of the Dera, in which the defendant claims to be a Mohanmim. Learned senior counsel would refer to the fact that plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 carry suffixes 'Singh' in their names and it is referred in the plaint that plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 are Jats and Zamindars and according to the petitioner, they would show that they cannot be themselves as followers of Udasian Sect to claim the relief of removal of the defendant as Mohatmim.

(3.) The counsel refers to the decision of Honourable the Supreme Court in Mahant Harnam Singh Vs. Gurdial Singh and another, AIR 67 SCC 1415 , that considered the validity of the institution of the suit under Sec. 92 Code of Civil Procedure where the persons were claiming that they had an interest in running a free kitchen and serving free food. The plaintiffs were Lambardars and followers of Sikh religion and claimed that they had an interest in the maintenance of the Trust which carry some charitable activities. The Court was considering the nature of Trust in the plaint described as Gurdwara Jhandawala and found it to be established and run by Nirmala Sadhu. The Court was holding that Nirmala Sadhus are not Sikhs and the plaintiffs claiming as Lambardars could not be said to have any interest in such a Dera to maintain the action.