1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2556 OF 2010 Mahant Ramendrapuri Guru Kapilmuni, Age 71 yrs., Occu. Preist, R/o. Kurtad, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli. ....Petitioner. Versus Dattatrya Devasthan Sanstha at Dongargaon Pul, Tq. Kalamnuri, Through its Mahant Ramsevak Gir Guru Kapilmuni, Age 73 yrs., Occu. Service, R/o. Bhar Jahangir, Tq. Risod, Dist. Washim. ....Respondent. Mr. P.S. Agrawal, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.S.S. Rathi, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : A.A.SAYED, J. DATED : 26th November, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 11.2.2010 passed by the District Judge-1, Hingoli, by which order, the Appellate Court allowed the Appeal and restored the suit by reversing order of the Trial Court, which had dismissed the application of the respondent for restoration of the suit. 3. It is noticed that the application for restoration of suit was very much within time. The main contention of the petitioner is that the application for restoration was filed on the basis of a power of attorney 2 and that the applicant was not authorized to file the application. On a query by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that no letter was written to the applicant by the petitioner for inspection of the power of attorney. In my view, without this exercise being carried out it was not open to the petitioner to question the power of attorney. Nothing is pointed out to show that it is impermissible to file an application on behalf of a trust on the basis of a power of attorney, as is sought to be suggested. 4. It is now by well settled that in an application for restoration of the suit, the Court would ordinarily take a liberal view of the matter if the action or inaction is not deliberate or malafide and it is always desirable that the suit be heard on merits. Undisputedly, there is no delay in filing the application. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no merit in the petition. The impugned order is unexceptional and no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. [ A. A. SAYED, J. ] ssc/wp2556.10