9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining an appeal from a decree passed in a suit under Section 92, Civil P.C., concerning a Gurdwara when the appeal was preferred before the Sikh Gurdwaras Act came into force. 2. Impact of the Gurdwara being notified as a Sikh Gurdwara after the decision of the trial Court but before the institution of the appeal. 3. Procedure to be adopted by the High Court if it is not competent to decide the appeals due to the provisions of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the High Court post-enactment of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act The High Court examined the effect of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act on its jurisdiction to entertain appeals pending before its enactment. The Act broadly classifies Gurdwaras into three categories, but the discussion was limited to Gurdwaras included in Schedule 1, declared as "Notified Sikh Gurdwaras." The Court addressed the argument that all cases relating to Notified Sikh Gurdwaras pending on 1st November 1925 became "automatically dead," thus stripping the Courts of their power to proceed further. However, the Court found no provision in the Acts supporting this contention. Instead, it was determined that the Act only restricted the Courts' power to decide specific matters conclusively settled by the legislature or transferred to the Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the right of appeal is a vested right, not merely procedural, and is preserved unless explicitly revoked by the amending statute. The Court cited precedents establishing that statutes should not be construed to have retrospective effects unless clearly intended by the legislature. Therefore, the High Court retained jurisdiction to hear and decide the appeals, although it may not grant all the reliefs claimed due to the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. Issue 2: Impact of Notification Post-Trial Court Decision Although this specific scenario did not arise in the present case, the Court noted that the principles discussed would apply similarly if a Gurdwara was notified as a Sikh Gurdwara after the trial Court's decision but before the appeal's institution. The High Court's jurisdiction would still be intact, and it would continue to decide the appeal, subject to the limitations imposed by the Act. Issue 3: Procedure if High Court is Incompetent to Decide Appeals The Court examined the applicability of Sections 29 and 32 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act to pending appeals. It concluded that these sections, which refer to "suits" or "proceedings," do not apply to appeals. The term "suit or proceeding" was interpreted narrowly, signifying actions in the trial Court or proceedings ejusdem generis, not including appeals. The procedure outlined in Section 32, involving the forwarding of records to the Tribunal for determination, was deemed inapplicable to appeals. The appellate Court's function is to review the trial Court's evidence and findings, not to act as a ministerial functionary of the Tribunal. The Court highlighted the anomalies and complications that would arise if Sections 29 and 32 were applied to appeals, such as the simultaneous pendency of appeals in the High Court and the Tribunal, leading to potential conflicts in jurisdiction and findings. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the enactment of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act and the notification of a Gurdwara as a Sikh Gurdwara do not bar its jurisdiction to hear and decide pending appeals against decrees passed in suits under Section 92, Civil P.C. The procedure in Section 32 applies only to suits or proceedings in the trial Court, not to appeals. The High Court must proceed with the appeals, although it may not be able to grant all the reliefs claimed due to the Act's provisions. Judgment: The High Court answered the referred questions as follows: 1. The High Court retains jurisdiction to decide appeals pending when the Sikh Gurdwaras Act came into force, though it may not grant all reliefs. 2. This question does not arise in this reference. 3. Section 32's procedure applies to suits or proceedings in the trial Court, not to pending appeals. Concurring Opinions: Broadway, J., and Addison, J., concurred with the judgment and had nothing to add.
|
