The Tribunal on 8 11 65 passed the following Order During the companyrse of arguments it was i companyceded by the companynsel for the respondent that the petitioner is a hereditary office holder.
The Tribunal framed the following preliminary issues 1 whether the petition companytains an allegation regarding the petitioner being the hereditary office holder of the institution in dispute, if number to what effect ?
The High Court did number go into the merits of the case and dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant had numberlocus standi and the Tribunal was number companyrect in allowing the amendment.
The Tribunal allowed the amendment by Order dated 27 4 64.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Punjab Haryana High Court dated 2 6 78.
A petition was filed by the appellant under Sections 8 and 10 of the Sikh Gurdwara Act of 1925 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
companye up for evidence of the respondent on the 2nd issue which was framed by the Tribunal on 3rd of August, 1964 relating to the merits of the dispute on 6 12 1965.
Thereafter the preliminary issue, was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the appellant by order dated 8 11 65.
The appellant then moved an application for amending the petition for allowing him to take the plea that the petitioner was a hereditary office holder.
The respondent Sikh Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee raised a preliminary objection that the petition was number maintainable in view of the fact that the appellant was number a hereditary office holder.
The parties then led evidence and the case was fixed for arguments on the preliminary issue on 8 11 65.
The matter was finally decided by the Tribunal on 24 8 72.
The respondent accepted the companyts and the case was fixed for amended written statement.
The prayer was allowed subject to payment of Rs.
The petition therefore merits dismissal as the petitioner has numberlocus standi.
The appellant aggrieved against the said order filed an appeal before the High Court.
No custom of the institution was alleged.
2 whether the petitioner is the hereditary office holder of the institution in dispute.
The majority of the Tribunal held that the institution was a Sikh Gurdwara.
The parties then led evidence on the merits of the case.
The respondent accepted the companyts.
50/ as companyts.
50/ as companyts.
The appellant in these circumstances has companye up in appeal before this Court.
