1 WP No.1884.07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1884 OF 2007 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1885 OF 2007 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1886 OF 2007 Chandrakant Ramchandra Deshmukh and Ors. .. Petitioners. Vs. Mahadev Shankar Wale .. Respondents. Mr.Haribhau Deshinge i/b Nitin Jamdar for the petitioners. Mr.A.K.Suryawanshi for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 21/09/2010. PC: 1. These three writ petitions are directed against the judgment and order dated 5.1.2007 passed by the District Judge-I, Solapur on the applications at Exhibit-39 in civil review application no.7 of 2003, Exhibit-25 in civil review application no.8 of 2003 and Exhibit-24 in civil review application no.9 of 2003. 2. The review applications are filed by the respondent against the judgment and order dated 7.12.2000 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Solapur in civil miscellaneous application S 2 WP No.1884.07 no.138 of 1998, 139 of 1998 and 193 of 1998. These applications were filed against the judgment and order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner dated 9.7.1998 passed in appeal no.16 of 1998. By the order dated 9.7.1992, appeal no.16 of 1998 filed by some of the trustees under section 70 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 challenging the order dated 24.2.1998 passed by the learned Asst.Charity Commissioner in change report no. 17 of 1998 was challenged. By the order dated 24.2.1998 the Asst.Charity Commissioner had accepted the change report no.17 of 1998. The order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner dated 9.7.1998 was impugned in civil misc. application nos.138 of 1998, 139 of 1998 and 192 of 1998 and these applications were withdrawn by the applicants by filing pursis at Exhibit-53 in civil misc. application nos.138 of 1998 and pursis at Exhibit-14 in civil misc. application nos.139 of 1998 and 192 of 1998. In view of these pursis all the three applications were disposed of and the judgment of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune dated 9.7.1998 was confirmed. It is against this order the respondent filed civil misc. application nos.7 of 2003, 8 of 2003 and 9 of 2003, seeking review and in the review applications filed application at Exhibit-39, 25 and 24 for adding him as party. Admittedly, the respondent was not 3 WP No.1884.07 party in the earlier proceedings either before the Asst.Charity Commissioner in change report no.17 of 1998 or in appeal no. 16 of 1998 before the Joint Charity Commissioner or in civil misc. application nos.138 of 1998, 139 of 1998 and 192 of 1998. It is against this backdrop the common order passed by the District Judge allowing the application filed by the respondent for his impleadment is impugned in this petition. 3. Mr.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that term of each of the trustees, who were appointed as the trustees and in respect of whom the change report was accepted by the Asst. Charity Commissioner on 24.2.1998, was only five years. He further submits that after the period of five years got over either same or some new trustees were appointed from time to time. It is against this backdrop when I asked a specific question to the learned counsel for the respondent as to what is he going to gain out of these proceedings, he could not and did not give satisfactory reply. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submitted that even if the respondent succeeds in this proceedings he would not get anything since new trustees are appointed in the place of earlier trustees and their appointments are not challenged by the respondent. These new trustees and/or their appointments are not before the court. Apart 4 WP No.1884.07 from this it was also submitted that the court below was wrong in entertaining the application filed by the respondent at such a belated stage and that too when, admittedly, he was not party to the proceedings. Having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case I am satisfied that the court below was wrong in entertaining review applications and the applications filed by the respondents for their impleadment as parties in the review applications at such a belated stage. In any case the respondent had no locus to challenge the order dated 7.12.2000 by which the application nos.138/98, 139/98 and 193/98 were disposed of as withdrawn. Moreover, even if the respondent succeeds in these proceedings, he would not get any relief. In the circumstances these writ petitions deserve to be allowed in terms of the interim order passed by this court on 18.6.2007. Order accordingly. Rule in all the petitions is disposed of in terms of this judgment. No costs. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)