1 fa632­1010­10 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 632 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1611 OF 2010 AND FIRST APPEAL NO.1010 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2814 OF 2010 Samuel Dadoba Chopde & Ors. .. Appellants V/s. Sharad Krishnaji Kurane & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. S. D. Patil for the appellants. Mr. Umesh Mankapure for the respondents. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : AUGUST 17, 2011. P.C.: These Appeals arise out of orders passed by the District Court on applications under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The First Appeal No.1010 of 2010 arises out of order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in Change Report No.261 of 2000. The said Change Report was filed in respect of a public charitable trust known as “Sangli Church, Sangli”. The said Change Report was filed for deleting the names of the four 2 fa632­1010­10 trustees who had died and for incorporating the names of four persons as trustees. The Change Report was allowed by the leaned Assistant Charity Commissioner and Appeal was preferred by the present Appellants before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner passed an order by which the Appeal was allowed and the change report was remanded to the Assistant Charity Commissioner for fresh hearing. An application was preferred by the contesting respondents under Section 72 of the said Act. By the impugned Judgment and order, the said application has been allowed by setting aside the order of the learned Joint Charity Commissioner and by restoring the order of the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner. 2. First Appeal No.632 of 2010 arises out of the Change Report No.360 of 2005. The Change Report was accepted by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. In Appeal preferred by the appellants, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, by setting aside the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner passed an order of remand. The contesting respondents preferred an application under Section 72 of the said Act before the District Court. The said application has been allowed by the impugned Judgment and Order. The learned District Judge by setting aside the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner has restored the 3 fa632­1010­10 order passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Marutirao Vishvanath Bagal V/s Dinkar Kashinath More [2004 (4) Mh.L.J. 982). He submitted that as far as impugned order in First Appeal No.1010 of 2010 is concerned, the allegations made by the appellants were of fraud and forgery. He pointed out that though objection to the Change Report was raised by the appellants at Exhibit 16, a letter allegedly sent by the appellants was placed on record of the Assistant Charity Commissioner at Exhibit 19 by which the appellants purportedly withdrew the said earlier application. He submitted that the said letter was forged and fabricated and, therefore, the order of remand was rightly passed as the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner has not considered the case of fraud and forgery. He, therefore, submitted that the Change Report proceeding had not become academic. He submitted that in so far as the facts of First Appeal No.632 of 2010 are concerned, the order of remand was passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner for various reasons. He submitted that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner found that the Assistant Charity Commissioner has relied upon only xerox copies of the relevant documents. He submitted that none of the documents such as notice of the meeting, membership list, consent letters 4 fa632­1010­10 were produced in original and none of the said documents were exhibited. He, therefore, submitted that the order of remand was proper and the District Court ought not to have interfered with the said order of remand. 4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. Considering the change which is set out in both the Change Reports, by the time the matters reached District Court, the Change Reports had become academic. The tenure of the concerned newly appointed trustees had admittedly expired by that time. In view of the decision of this Court in the case of Marutirao (Supra), the proceedings arising out of Change Report cannot be closed on the ground that the same have become academic, if allegations of fraud and forgery have been made. 5. As far as First Appeal No.1010 of 2010 is concerned, the allegation of forgery is that the fabricated letter at Exhibit­19 was produced which recorded withdrawal of the objections at Exhibit­16 filed by the appellants. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents has tendered across the bar a copy of the application/objection at Exhibit­16. In the said application/objection, there is no contention raised whatsoever of forgery or fraud as regards any of the documents relied upon in the Change Reports or as regards the contents of the Change 5 fa632­1010­10 Reports. The issue raised regarding Exhibit­19 would have become relevant provided in Exhibit­16 which is the objection to the Change Reports recorded by the appellants, fraud or forgery would have been pleaded. 6. As far as First Appeal No.632 of 2010 is concerned, the remand was basically because the original documents were not produced and only photocopies of the documents were produced alongwith the Change Report. There is no serious challenge by the appellants to the Change Report on the ground of forgery or fraud. 7. Therefore in both the cases, the District Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the issues involved had become academic by passage of time. 8. The settled law is that a First Appeal against an order passed on application under Section 72 of the said Act is in the nature of a Second Appeal which can be entertained only on a substantial question of law. There is no substantial question of law involved and hence, both the Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. 9. Civil Application Nos.2814 and 1611 of 2010 do not survive and the same are disposed of. 6 fa632­1010­10 10. It is made clear that if any other Change Report proceedings are pending, the same shall be disposed of on its own merit in accordance with law without being influenced by this order of Court. (A.S.OKA, J.)