Mani Singh Chela Mit Singh (Since Deceased) Through His Lr. Vs. Shromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Amritsar - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1153050
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJun-30-2014
AppellantMani Singh Chela Mit Singh (Since Deceased) Through His Lr.
RespondentShromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Amritsar
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh review application no.13-ci of 2014 in rfa no.1572 of 1985 (o&m) date of decision:30.06.2014 mani singh chela mit singh (since deceased) through his lr..appellant versus shromani gurdwara parbandhak committee, amritsar ...respondent coram: hon’ble mr.justice k. kannan ---- present: mr.pardeep goyal, advocate, for the applicant/appellant. ---- 1. whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. no.2. to be referred to the reporters or not ?. no.3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?. no.---- k.kannan, j. cm no.5590-ci of 2014 for the reasons stated in the application, delay of 232 days in filing the review application is condoned. application stands disposed of. cm no.5591-ci of 2014 the application for making good the deficiency in court fee is allowed review application no.13-ci of 2014 1. the application for review has been filed contending kumar sanjeev 2014.06.30 15:38 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document review application no.13-ci of 2014 in rfa no.1572 of 1985 (o&m) -2- that some legal provisions had not been properly adverted to and that further an important enactment, viz, the places of worship (special provisions) act, 1991 (for short, 'the 1991 act') has not been considered and it should have been taken as substantial question of law. 2. i find the contention taken in the review application is absolutely untenable and unacceptable. the case was heard at length and a reasonably long judgment adverting to all the points that were argued had been set forth in the judgment. it is futile to contend that any point of law has been missed. even a reference to the provisions of the 1991 act is meaningless, for, i was upholding a statutory right under section 28 of the shrimoni gurdwara parbandhak committee act (for short, 'the sgpc act') to be given full enforcement immediately without being stultified by a recalcitrant person, who was holding up wrongful possession and preventing the due procedure protected under the law to be given its full play. the 1991 act does not refer to place of worship which come about subsequent to a notification which was issued under the sgpc act. the grounds taken in the review application are wholly frivolous and it is dismissed. even while dismissing the appeal, i had imposed a cost of `25,000/-. i find this application for review is absolutely without merit and i impose a cost of `10,000/- as a clear abuse of process and direct that to be paid to the punjab legal kumar sanjeev 2014.06.30 15:38 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document review application no.13-ci of 2014 in rfa no.1572 of 1985 (o&m) -3- services authority. a copy of the order is also directed to be sent to the member secretary to claim costs in execution if the amount is not paid. (k.kannan) judge3006.2014 sanjeev kumar sanjeev 2014.06.30 15:38 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Review Application No.13-CI of 2014 in RFA No.1572 of 1985 (O&M) Date of decision:30.06.2014 Mani Singh Chela Mit Singh (since deceased) through his LR..Appellant versus Shromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.

KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Pardeep Goyal, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant.

---- 1.

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.

No.2.

To be referred to the reporters or not ?.

No.3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?.

No.---- K.Kannan, J.

CM No.5590-CI of 2014 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 232 days in filing the review application is condoned.

Application stands disposed of.

CM No.5591-CI of 2014 The application for making good the deficiency in court fee is allowed Review Application No.13-CI of 2014 1.

The application for review has been filed contending Kumar Sanjeev 2014.06.30 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Review Application No.13-CI of 2014 in RFA No.1572 of 1985 (O&M) -2- that some legal provisions had not been properly adverted to and that further an important enactment, viz, The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (for short, 'the 1991 Act') has not been considered and it should have been taken as substantial question of law.

2.

I find the contention taken in the review application is absolutely untenable and unacceptable.

The case was heard at length and a reasonably long judgment adverting to all the points that were argued had been set forth in the judgment.

It is futile to contend that any point of law has been missed.

Even a reference to the provisions of the 1991 Act is meaningless, for, I was upholding a statutory right under Section 28 of the Shrimoni Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Act (for short, 'the SGPC Act') to be given full enforcement immediately without being stultified by a recalcitrant person, who was holding up wrongful possession and preventing the due procedure protected under the law to be given its full play.

The 1991 Act does not refer to place of worship which come about subsequent to a notification which was issued under the SGPC Act.

The grounds taken in the review application are wholly frivolous and it is dismissed.

Even while dismissing the appeal, I had imposed a cost of `25,000/-.

I find this application for review is absolutely without merit and I impose a cost of `10,000/- as a clear abuse of process and direct that to be paid to the Punjab Legal Kumar Sanjeev 2014.06.30 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Review Application No.13-CI of 2014 in RFA No.1572 of 1985 (O&M) -3- Services Authority.

A copy of the order is also directed to be sent to the Member Secretary to claim costs in execution if the amount is not paid.

(K.KANNAN) JUDGE3006.2014 sanjeev Kumar Sanjeev 2014.06.30 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document