1971 (3) TMI 133 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court
2. Factum and Validity of the Sanction under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure
3. Admission under Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure
4. Legality of the Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee's Constitution

Detailed Analysis:

Jurisdiction of the Court:
The appellants contended that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that such suits should be filed in the principal civil court of original jurisdiction, which in Delhi is the Court of the District Judge. The Court noted that the valuation of the suit was fixed at Rs.2,50,000/- and no objection to this valuation was raised in the written statement. The Court held that, due to the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, as amended, the High Court of Delhi has ordinary original civil jurisdiction in every suit where the value exceeds fifty thousand rupees. Consequently, the High Court is the principal civil court of original jurisdiction for such suits, overriding Section 24 of the Punjab Courts Act. Therefore, the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Factum and Validity of the Sanction under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The appellants challenged the factum and validity of the sanction under Section 92, arguing that the consent of the Collector was obtained fraudulently. The Court observed that the appellants did not provide specific details or particulars of the alleged fraud in their written statement. The Court emphasized that the consent was given by Mr. A.A. Khwaja, described as "Addl; District Magistrate (North) exercising powers of Advocate General under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code." The Court held that in the absence of specific allegations and particulars, the plea of fraud was not sustainable. Therefore, the consent granted by Mr. Khwaja was valid.

Admission under Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The appellants argued that there was no admission in their written statement to justify a decision under Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court noted that the appellants had stated that they were "whole-heartedly with the scheme mentioned and would also contribute their mite in a reverential spirit." The Court concluded that there was no objection to the desirability of making the donation, and the appellants had not raised any issues regarding the financial capability of the Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee to make such a donation. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in decreeing the suit based on the appellants' admission.

Legality of the Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee's Constitution:
The appellants questioned the legality of the Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee's constitution and alleged unauthorized expenditures. The Court held that these issues were irrelevant to the present suit, which was solely concerned with whether the proposed donation should be made by the Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee. The Court emphasized that the suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure was to seek directions for the public trust and not to address the internal disputes of the Committee. Therefore, the allegations regarding the Committee's constitution and expenditures did not warrant any issue in the present suit.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court affirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge, declaring that the respondents were competent to make the donation of Rs.2,50,000/- towards the establishment of Guru Nanak Eye Hospital in Delhi and to make further donations as the finances of the Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee permitted. The Court directed that such contributions should be made through a cross cheque drawn in the payee's account. No order as to costs was made.