DARSHAN SINGH Vs. GURBACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the currency of this revision the petitioners -respondents seek the reversal of the order dated 27.09.2000 propounded by City Judge Jammu whereby the petitioners/Respondents application for reference of a dispute to the Board in invoking the provisions of S. 8 of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred as 'The Act) and staying the proceedings in the suit stood rejected.

(2.) IT appears that in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction commenced by the plaintiffs -respondents in refraining the defendants -Petitioners from interfering in the management of the plaintiffs -respondents over Gurudawara Sahib Shri Guru Singh Sabha, Gole Gujral, Jammu and dispossessing the plaintiffs -respondents from the possession of the Gurudawara and removing the golak from Gurudawara the defendants -petitioners were put to notice at the first instance. The defendants -petitioners instead of filing the written statement initiated an application under section 8 of the Arbitration Act in seeking reference of the dispute regarding the Gurudawara to state Gurudawara Parbandak Committee for arbitration as provided under R -64 of the J&K Sikh Gurudawaras Religious Endowment Rules -1975 (hereinafter referred as the 'rules). It was also stated that in view of the statutory clause introduced in the rules and the plaintiffs -respondents claiming to be the nominees of D.G.P.C and managing the affairs of the Gurudawara, they cannot maintain the suit in their own right. However, after inviting objections from the plaintiffs -petitioners and hearing the parties the trial court found that the provisions of R -64 are attracted only where the dispute over the property or offerings exists between two committees constituted under the gurudawara Act. The trial court further found that the defendants -petitioners having accepted the petition that the defendants committee has been appointed by the Sangat and consequently Rules 64 of the Gurudawara Endowment Rules will not apply to the case which entailed the rejection of the application and penultimately became the subject matter of challenge in this revision.

(3.) I have heard the rival contentions put -across by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and persued the order impugned in revision in context with the relevant provisions of the Rules, 1975, J&K Sikh Gurudawara Endowment Act, 1973 and the rules made thereunder amended upto February 1997, touching the matter in controversy.