1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO.4955 OF 2007 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.77 OF 2006 Milind Govind Kshirsagar & ors. ... Applicants versus Datta Devasthan Trust and others. ... Respondents ----- Shri V.S. Bedre, Advocate, for the review applicants. Shri S.V.Natu, Advocate, for Respondent No. 1. Shri S.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for intervenors-added Respondents. Coram: P.R. Borkar J. Date: 07.10.2009. P.C. 1. By this revision application, review is sought of the order passed by this Court (Coram: P.V.Kakade,J.) on 28.2.2007 disposing of Civil Revision Application No.77 of 2006. 2 2. Heard Advocate Shri V.S.Bedre, for the applicant, Advocate Shri S.V.Natu, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Advocate Shri S.S.Deshmukh, intervenors. 3. Learned counsel have taken me through the pleadings of the parties, orders passed by trial court and this court order dated 28.2.2007. One of the main arguments of Advocate Shri Bedre for review applicant is that by order passed one below another, learned trial court Judge decided application Exh.5 for temporary injunction and application at Exh.20 for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 7 of C.P.C. 1908, on the ground that the permission of Charity Commissioner was not obtained. It appears from the copy of joint order passed below Exhibits 5 and 20 in R.C.S. No.197 of 2006, copy of which is at Exhibit F to C.R.A. No.77 of 2006, that the learned Judge decided the application Exhibit 20 on 20.7.2006 and then proceeded further to write paragraph 14 onwards dealing with application Exh.5 and passed order below it on 27.7.2006, which can also be said to be a common order in both the applications. 4. The first point argued by Advocate Shri Bedre is that as against decision on application at Exh. 5 for temporary injunction, the defendants filed Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.93 of 2006 before 3 the District Court which was rejected on 21.9.2006 and as against the same, Writ Petition No.2755 of 2007 was filed and was withdrawn. As a result, the order of the District Court became final and the order below Exh.5 was also set aside by this court in the civil revision application. 5. Advocate Shri Natu explained that C.R.A. No. 77 of 2006 first came to be decided on 28.2.2007 and the Writ Petition came up for hearing subsequently and since already order on Exhibit 5 was set aside in C.R.A., writ petition was withdrawn on 6.9.2007. So, it is not that the order on Exhibit 5 had become final and thereafter this C.R.A. has come to be decided. It is also argued that the plaintiff was concerned with only right of pooja of deities in the trust property and he sought injunction in respect of his right of pooja and other rituals. Advocate Shri Natu pointed out that as per paragraph 1 of the plaint, there are two parts. First part relates to the temple in which admittedly plaintiff has right to perform pooja and other rituals, but the plaintiff also included property described in plaint para 1- B which is, in fact, suit property and thereby he wanted to get right in the newly constructed temple.. My learned predecessor has in paragraph 8 of his order dated 28.2.2007 observed that the plaintiff has surreptitiously added certain aspects which indeed touch the business and 4 working of the trust itself. Reference was made to paragraph 6 of the said order in which it is observed that the plaintiff was entitled to supervision over construction of temple and the court has come to a definite conclusion that the plaintiff has very cleverly blended his private rights in the affairs of the trust which cannot be allowed in law. At the same time, assurance given by plaintiff's counsel was recorded to the effect that those rights under settlement deed conferred on the plaintiff will not be affected by the trustees. 6. After going through the judgment of this court, in my opinion, this is not a case wherein review application can be entertained. Hence, review application is dismissed. pnd/ra4955.07 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)