Case against gurdwara can’t fail if holy book not made party

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, July 29

In an out of the ordinary order, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that a case against a gurdwara cannot fail just because Guru Granth Sahib has not been made a party to the proceedings.

The assertion came in case of a property dispute in Ludhiana between a gurdwara and Punjab Waqf Board. Appearing for the gurdwara before the Bench of Justice K. Kannan, a senior counsel had earlier contended that “Guru Granth Sahib was a juristic person and the suit should have been instituted against such a person and not against the gurdwara itself”.

A juristic person means a body of persons, a corporation, a partnership, or other legal entity recognised by law as the subject of rights and duties. A juristic person is also called artificial person, conventional person, or a fictitious person. A juristic person can hold property, can sue and be sued.

The Bench was also told that the Waqf Tribunal had issued order of possession’s recovery in Waqf Board’s favour, while accepting the plea that the gurdwara had trespassed into Waqf property.

Justice Kannan added the case was filed against the Gurdwara Singh Sabha through its president, office-bearers and other persons in the village. “While Gurdwara Singh Sabha itself could be a juristic person and institution stands on it, it is nonetheless a party in the eyes of law against which a lawful decree could be passed.

“Indeed there cannot be a contention before me that in the absence of the Guru Granth Sahib as a party, the case must fail for non-joinder of necessary party. The Waqf Board is entitled to a decree against the person who obstructs the right to possession…. The impugned order is maintained and the civil revision petition is dismissed”.

Before parting with the orders, Justice Kannan added: “I must observe that two religious institutions ought not be confronted in a head-to-head fight. It is only appropriate that the gurdwara through its chief representatives engage in a meaningful dialogue and secure a workable solution.

“It ought to be at the initiative of the parties themselves and I will find no scope for intervention. Time for eviction is three months from the date of the passing of this order”.