Civil court jurisdiction under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act was not ousted absent clear statutory exclusion; remand order treated as final.

Under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, civil court jurisdiction is excluded only by clear statutory language or necessary implication; on the facts, Section 29 did not oust the suit because the dispute did not fall within the Act's tribunal machinery under Section 16, so the civil court could entertain and decide it. An order described as a remand may still be a final order if it conclusively determines the parties' substantive rights on a preliminary issue; here, the High Court's determination on ownership and the character of the property was final for appeal purposes, making the certificate competent. The merits of title were left for further findings.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the civil court's jurisdiction to try the suit was barred by the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925; (ii) whether the High Court's order remanding the suit was a final order so as to sustain the certificate and the appeal.

Issue (i): whether the civil court's jurisdiction to try the suit was barred by the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the scheme of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, especially the provisions dealing with notifications, objections, tribunal procedure, and the bar of civil suits. The Court held that even assuming the claim could have been raised under the Act, exclusion of the civil court's jurisdiction required clear and unambiguous statutory language or necessary implication. Section 29 did not operate as an absolute ouster on the facts, because the situation did not fit the machinery contemplated by the Act for tribunal determination under Section 16. The Act therefore did not bar the suit on the facts before the Court.

Conclusion: The civil court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit, and the objection to jurisdiction failed.

Issue (ii): whether the High Court's order remanding the suit was a final order so as to sustain the certificate and the appeal.

Analysis: Although the High Court framed its order as a remand, it had in substance decided the controlling rights of the parties on the preliminary question of ownership and the character of the property. That determination finally affected the parties' rights for the purpose of appeal, and the later decree passed by the trial court after remand remained subject to the result of the present appeal.

Conclusion: The High Court's order was a final order for purposes of appeal, and the certificate was competent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the jurisdictional and maintainability objections, but the merits of title were not finally decided and the matter was remanded for findings on the remaining issues.

Ratio Decidendi: A civil court's jurisdiction is not excluded unless the statute does so by clear language or necessary implication, and an order styled as a remand may still be a final order if it conclusively determines the substantive rights in controversy.

---