Manish Ranjan Mehta v. Gurudwara Guru Nanak Singh Sahab And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13611 of 2014 =========================================================== Manish Ranjan Mehta Son of Shree Narayan Prasad Mehta Resident of Mohalla Mirzapur Chowk, P.S. Town, district- Darbhanga. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Gurudwara Guru Nanak Singh Sahab, Darbhanga through the Secretary, Guru Nanak Singh Saheb, Mohalla Mirzapur, P.S. Town, DistrictDarbhanga.

2. Sardar Gurmeet Singh Son of Sardar Guru Badhan Singh, Secretary, Gurudwara Guru Nanak Singh Sahab, Mirzapur, P.S. Town, DistrictDarbhanga.

3. Sardar Muneshwar Singh Son of Late Sardar Gurudwara Guru Nanak Singh Sahab, Darbhanga.

4. Kuldeep singh Son of Late Sardar Atma singh Vice- President of Gurudwara Guru Nanak Singh Sahab, Darbhanga.

5. Gurmeet Singh Son of Sardar Tej Singh Assistant Secretary, Gurudwara Guru Nanak Singh Sahab, Darbhanga.

6. Sardar Tehal Singh Son of Late Sardar Atama Singh Member of Advisory Committee, Guru Nanak Singh Sahab, Darbhanga.

7. Shri Ved Prakash Son of Late Tarachand Member of Advisory Committee, Guru Nanak Singh Sahab, Darbhanga.

8. Sardar Manjeet Singh Son of Late Kuldip Singh Member of Advisory Committee, Guru Nanak Singh Sahab, Darbhanga.

9. Harbachan Singh Son of Late Sardar Prem Singh resident of VillageMadhudih, P.O.- Saharghat, District: Madhubani. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sameer Ranjan, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 17-10-2016

Patna High Court CWJC No.13611 of 2014 dt.17-10-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

By the impugned order the learned court below has allowed the prayer of the plaintiff for adducing witnesses in evidence after finding that it was reasonable for ends of justice to grant such opportunity to the plaintiffs. The learned court below has also observed that the defendant no. 1 shall have the full opportunity to cross examine the witnesses.

After considering the submissions which has largely centered around the aspect that the plaintiffs want to fill-up the lacuna in the case, this Court is not inclined to interdict the impugned order by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned court below has committed no illegality in passing the impugned order granting opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in the facts and circumstances of the case. The application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(V. Nath, J) Devendra/- U