FAO-2053 & 632 [217] [1] Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced? Whether full judgment is pronounced? Shiromani Gurdwara Parbhandhik Committee through Shri Salwinder Singh, General Power of Attorney, Section 5, Karamjit Singh son of S. Balwant Singh [2] Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced? Whether full judgment is pronounced? S. Karamjit Singh son of S. Balwant Singh Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committtee, Amritsar through S. Gurminder Singh, General Attorney Coram : Present: PANKAJ JAIN [1] Gurdwara Act, 1925 are directed against judgment dated 29.01.1998 passed by Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission, Amritsar SGPC seeking recovery of 2053 & 632-1998 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2053 Reserved on 23.02.2026 Pronounced on : Uploaded on : Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced? Whether full judgment is pronounced? Shiromani Gurdwara Parbhandhik Committee through Shri Salwinder Singh, General Power of Attorney, Section 5, Chandigarh versus Karamjit Singh son of S. Balwant Singh FAO-632- Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced? Whether full judgment is pronounced? S. Karamjit Singh son of S. Balwant Singh versus Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committtee, Amritsar through S. Gurminder Singh, General HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Mr. Gurmohan Singh Bedi, Advocate for the appellant in FAO-2053-1998 and for the respondent in FAO-632-1998. Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate for the appellant in FAO-632-1998 and for the respondent in FAO-2053-1998. PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) These two cross-appeals filed under Section 142 (3) of Gurdwara Act, 1925 are directed against judgment dated 29.01.1998 passed by Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission, Amritsar SGPC seeking recovery of ₹33,525/-. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 053-1998 (O&M) Reserved on 23.02.2026 Pronounced on : 22.05.2026 Uploaded on : 26.05.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced? : No : Yes Shiromani Gurdwara Parbhandhik Committee through Shri Salwinder Singh, General Power …Appellant ….Respondent -1998 (O&M) Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced? : No : Yes S. Karamjit Singh son of S. Balwant Singh …Appellant Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committtee, Amritsar through S. Gurminder Singh, General ….Respondent PANKAJ JAIN Advocate for the appellant for the respondent for the appellant and for the respondent appeals filed under Section 142 (3) of The Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 are directed against judgment dated 29.01.1998 passed by Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission, Amritsar on the petition filed by 1 Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 are directed against judgment dated 29.01.1998 passed n the petition filed by RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.26 18:16 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-2053 & 632 [2] claiming that respondent Gurdwara, Dehra Sahib Patshahi 6, Daroli Bhai, Tehsil Moga, District Faridkot on 21.12.1984. 2 leased out by respondent on 11.05.1986 for the year 1985 of ₹33,525/ Jalaur Singh for plot No.2 was leased out t Plot No.3 measuring 05 acre ₹9250/-. 05 acre Singh for an amount of [3] recover the payment from communications were sent to respondent to lessees. Pre SGPC that even though respondent has from the lessee(s) respondent admitted the same in his statement dated 29.12.1988 to produce cash book or cash receipt before pre checking. the lease money respondent [4] employer- no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as he was never employed as 2053 & 632-1998 (O&M) SGPC approached Commission under Section 14 claiming that respondent-Karamjit Singh was appointed as Manager of Gurdwara, Dehra Sahib Patshahi 6, Daroli Bhai, Tehsil Moga, District Faridkot on 21.12.1984. 20 ½ acres of land belonging to Gurdwara leased out by respondent on 11.05.1986 for the year 1985 33,525/-. 05 acres of land comprised in plot No.1 was leased out to Jalaur Singh for a lease amount of ₹ 8285 plot No.2 was leased out to Jalaur Singh for Plot No.3 measuring 05 acres of land was leased out to Karnail Singh for . 05 acres of land comprised in plot No.4 was leased out to Nirbhai Singh for an amount of ₹ 7050/-. The lease was granted through auction. Respondent failed to recover the payment from lessee(s) at the time of auction communications were sent to respondent to Pre-auditor in his report dated 01.01.1989 brought to the notice of SGPC that even though respondent has the lessee(s), but the same has not been deposited. As per SGPC, respondent admitted the same in his statement dated 29.12.1988 produce cash book or cash receipt before pre checking. A legal notice dated 15.03.1989 the lease money in the Gurdwara fund pondent failed to deposit the amount. The petition was contested by the respondent. He denied -employee relationship and claimed that no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as he was never employed as approached Commission under Section 142 of the Act Karamjit Singh was appointed as Manager of Gurdwara, Dehra Sahib Patshahi 6, Daroli Bhai, Tehsil Moga, District of land belonging to Gurdwara was leased out by respondent on 11.05.1986 for the year 1985-86 for an amount of land comprised in plot No.1 was leased out to 285/-. 5.5 acres of land comprised o Jalaur Singh for a lease amount of ₹9000/ of land was leased out to Karnail Singh for of land comprised in plot No.4 was leased out to Nirbhai e was granted through auction. Respondent failed to at the time of auction. Repeated communications were sent to respondent to realise the amount from the 01.01.1989 brought to the notice of SGPC that even though respondent has realised the amount of ₹33,525/ but the same has not been deposited. As per SGPC, respondent admitted the same in his statement dated 29.12.1988 but failed produce cash book or cash receipt before pre-auditor at the time of legal notice dated 15.03.1989 was served upon him to deposit fund within 15 days. Despite that The petition was contested by the respondent. He denied employee relationship and claimed that Judicial Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as he was never employed as 2 2 of the Act, Karamjit Singh was appointed as Manager of Gurdwara, Dehra Sahib Patshahi 6, Daroli Bhai, Tehsil Moga, District was 86 for an amount of land comprised in plot No.1 was leased out to ed in 9000/-. of land was leased out to Karnail Singh for of land comprised in plot No.4 was leased out to Nirbhai e was granted through auction. Respondent failed to Repeated amount from the 01.01.1989 brought to the notice of 33,525/- but the same has not been deposited. As per SGPC, failed auditor at the time of to deposit espite that the The petition was contested by the respondent. He denied ommission has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as he was never employed as RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.26 18:16 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-2053 & 632 Manager under SGPC. He never drew any salary. He furt an Inspector has no reason to misappropriate the amount of [5] employee of SGPC. In order to arrive at statement made by respondent before Judicial Commission in case No.13 of 1986 titled as ‘ respondent with respect to his PW6-Paramjit Singh Walia, who proved his signatures in Appointment letter of Karamjit Singh has come on record as Exhibit P12 and the same stands proved by Secretary, SGPC. Relying upon the admission ma and RW2 Makhan Singh, Patwari SGPC in part and decreed the same against the respondent for an amount of ₹17,225/- holding any post member of any Committee of any notified Sikh Gurdwara or member of Board in future. [6] through records of the case. [7] Manager and managing affairs of Gurdwara Sahib. 20.5 acres of land belonging to Gurdwara was leased out. As per SGPC, Singh though accepted the amount from lessees 2053 & 632-1998 (O&M) Manager under SGPC. He never drew any salary. He furt Inspector appointed by SGPC was managing the agricultural land and he has no reason to misappropriate the amount of Commission vide impugned order held that the respondent was employee of SGPC. In order to arrive at statement made by respondent before Judicial Commission in case No.13 of 1986 titled as ‘SGPC, Amritsar versus Mit Singh etc respondent with respect to his illiteracy Paramjit Singh Walia, who proved his signatures in Appointment letter of Karamjit Singh has come on record as Exhibit P12 and the same stands proved by examining PW Secretary, SGPC. Relying upon the admission ma - Karnail Singh-the lessee(s) regarding payment of Makhan Singh, Patwari, Judicial Commission allowed the petition filed by SGPC in part and decreed the same against the respondent for an amount of - along with interest @ 12% per annum holding any post in any notified Sikh Gurdwara or Board or becoming a member of any Committee of any notified Sikh Gurdwara or member of Board in future. I have heard counsel for the pa through records of the case. The allegation against the respondent is that he was working as Manager and managing affairs of Gurdwara Sahib. 20.5 acres of land belonging to Gurdwara was leased out. As per SGPC, Singh though accepted the amount from lessees Manager under SGPC. He never drew any salary. He further claimed that SGPC was managing the agricultural land and he has no reason to misappropriate the amount of ₹33,525/-. Commission vide impugned order held that the respondent was employee of SGPC. In order to arrive at the said finding, SGPC relied upon statement made by respondent before Judicial Commission in case No.13 of Mit Singh etc.” The plea raised by illiteracy was also falsified by testimony Paramjit Singh Walia, who proved his signatures in Gurmukhi Appointment letter of Karamjit Singh has come on record as Exhibit P12 examining PW5-Kulwant Singh, Assistant Secretary, SGPC. Relying upon the admission made by RW1-Nirbhai Singh ) regarding payment of lease amount to Commission allowed the petition filed by SGPC in part and decreed the same against the respondent for an amount of along with interest @ 12% per annum. He was disqualified from any notified Sikh Gurdwara or Board or becoming a member of any Committee of any notified Sikh Gurdwara or member of I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone The allegation against the respondent is that he was working as Manager and managing affairs of Gurdwara Sahib. 20.5 acres of land belonging to Gurdwara was leased out. As per SGPC, respondent-Karamjit Singh though accepted the amount from lessees, but failed to deposit the 3 her claimed that SGPC was managing the agricultural land and he Commission vide impugned order held that the respondent was the said finding, SGPC relied upon statement made by respondent before Judicial Commission in case No.13 of .” The plea raised by was also falsified by testimony of urmukhi. Appointment letter of Karamjit Singh has come on record as Exhibit P12 , Assistant Nirbhai Singh lease amount to Commission allowed the petition filed by SGPC in part and decreed the same against the respondent for an amount of disqualified from any notified Sikh Gurdwara or Board or becoming a member of any Committee of any notified Sikh Gurdwara or member of rties and have carefully gone The allegation against the respondent is that he was working as Manager and managing affairs of Gurdwara Sahib. 20.5 acres of land Karamjit but failed to deposit the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.26 18:16 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-2053 & 632 same with SGPC. Two of the lessees, namely Nirbhai Singh appear not to respondent was conducted in the presence of Makhan Singh, Patwari respondent. In these circumstances, the Judicial Commission petition in part. [8] after appreciating the entire evidence the Commission needs no interference. [9] The same are ordered to be [10] disposed off [11] 22.05.2026 ‘R. Sharma' 2053 & 632-1998 (O&M) same with SGPC. Two of the lessees, namely Nirbhai Singh appeared as RW1 & RW2 and deposed that they paid lease amount not to respondent-Karamjit Singh, but to Makhan Singh, Patwari as auction was conducted in the presence of Makhan Singh, Patwari respondent. In these circumstances, the Judicial Commission petition in part. Pure finding of facts have been recorded by after appreciating the entire evidence threadbare the Commission needs no interference. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present appeals. The same are ordered to be dismissed. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. 22.05.2026 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable same with SGPC. Two of the lessees, namely Nirbhai Singh and Karnail as RW1 & RW2 and deposed that they paid lease amount but to Makhan Singh, Patwari as auction was conducted in the presence of Makhan Singh, Patwari and not the respondent. In these circumstances, the Judicial Commission allowed Pure finding of facts have been recorded by the Commission, threadbare. The judgment passed by In view of the above, finding no merit in the present appeals. iscellaneous application(s), if any, stands Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 4 Singh and Karnail as RW1 & RW2 and deposed that they paid lease amount but to Makhan Singh, Patwari as auction and not the the the Commission, . The judgment passed by In view of the above, finding no merit in the present appeals. iscellaneous application(s), if any, stands Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.26 18:16 I agree to specified portions of this document