TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1971 (3) TMI 133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Prabandhak Committee permit. The plaintiffs alleged that they are the members and office bearers of the Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Sis Ganj. Chandni Chowk, Delhi, which is a religious and charitable institution registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and this Society manages and controls all historical Gurdwaras of Delhi and was running numerous religious and chargeable institutions, colleges, dispensaries etc. It was alleged that written consent of the Collector of Delhi to institute this suit was granted on September 22, 1970 to the plaintiffs who have filed the suit not only for themselves but also on behalf of the Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee as represented by its Secretary and President. The activities of the Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee are enumerated in the plaint where it is also stated that the idea of establishing a Guru Nanak Eye Hospital in Delhi was mooted with the aim to evolve it into a full-fledged institute of ophthalmology provided the Government was prepared to build the hospital and to run it; that the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi assured full Government support; that the Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee should make substantial contribution kee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....romani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee had not been obtained for expenses beyond Rs.2,000/- incurred by the Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee. For various reasons set out in the written statement the valid constitution of the Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee was denied. The written statement further contained a bare denial of the factum and validity of the consent of the Collector as alleged in the plaint. Various instances of unauthorised expenses by the Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee have been cited in the written statements making allegations against the plaintiffs but in connection with the opening of the Eye Hospital it was stated:- "The answering defendants are whole-heartedly with the scheme mentioned and would also contribute their mite in a reverential spirit, but they can't allow the present G.P.C. to take personal advantages, to which they are prone, and against which the said Advocate is not prepared to give any assurances." It is clear from the above quoted plea that the appellants are not against the scheme nor do they aver that the proposed donation of RS.2,50,000/- was not justified. 6. The respondents filed a replication reiterating the statements made in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which has not been dealt with by the learned Single Judge. That being so, the absence of Issues cannot be said to have prejudiced the appellants. Even the complaint of the appellants that they were not allowed to lead evidence seems to be frivolous because the contentions raised in the suit are legal contentions for which hardly any evidence was necessary in view of the pleas raised. 9. The first contention that has been raised by Mr. Vohra, learned counsel for the appellants, is that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. This argument is that a suit as authorised by Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure has to be filed in the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction which in Delhi is the Court of the District Judge, Delhi, by reason of Section 24 of the Punjab Courts Act which provides that the Court of the District Judge shall be deemed to be the District Court or principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district. On this question it is relevant to mention that the valuation of the suit was fixed in the plaint at Rs.2,50,000/- and no plea has been raised in the written statement objecting to this valuation. This question has, Therefore,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd conferred upon this High Court, then notwithstanding Section 24 of the Punjab Courts Act, this High Court will be the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction irrespective of the valuation of the suit as in the case of what are called the Presidency High Courts. Reference in this connection may be made to AIR 1955 Bom 55 in re: Fazlehussein Haiderbhoy Buxamusa v. Yusufally Adamji, where it has been held that the Bombay High Court in the City of Bombay is the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. The original jurisdiction value of this High Court is in every suit the value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees and Therefore, this High Court is the principal Court of original civil jurisdiction in every such suit. A jurisdiction of the Court of the District Judge, Delhi has been conferred upon this High Court and, Therefore, with respect to such part, this High Court will be the principal Court of ordinary original civil jurisdiction notwithstanding Section 24 of the Punjab Courts Act. We, Therefore, agree with the learned Single Judge that for the purpose of this suit the value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the High Court is the principal Civil Court of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed or the facts relating to the alleged fraud have not been disclosed in the written statement. The learned Single Judge was, Therefore, right in observing that the details of the allegation fraud stated to have been committed by the respondents on the Collector while obtaining the consent under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure are lacking and not a single instance of the fraud has been cited by the appellants in the written statement O.6 R. 4 of the Civil P.C. requires that in all cases in which the party pleading relies on, inter alias any fraud particulars with dates and items if necessary shall be stated in the pleading. In the absence of such particulars, the plea of fraud is not open to the appellants and the mere allegation that the consent had been fraudulently obtained would not call for the farming of an Issue or the taking of any evidence. We, Therefore, hold that in the state of the pleadings in this suit, the appellants cannot be heard to deny the factum or validity of the consent granted by Mr. Khwaja to the respondents. Mr. Vohra argued that the respondents had applied for sanction in their capacity as office-bearers of the Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee ....