1 101 fa.109.11 anr ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 109 OF 2011 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 110 OF 2011 Samiullah Roshan Khan and anr. ... Appellants Versus Isar Ahamed Lais Mohammed and ors. ... Respondents ­­­­­ Mr. Anil R. Mishra for the Appellants. Mr. Arif Bookwala, Senior Counsel, i/b Gauri K. Jadhav for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7. ­­­­­ CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 01 st March, 2011. P.C. 1 These are appeals preferred under Section 72 (4) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) and hence the appeals will be maintainable only on the substantial question of law. 2 The Assistant Charity Commissioner held an inquiry under Section 19 of the said Act. The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner held the said inquiry on the basis of the application made by Respondent 2 101 fa.109.11 anr No.3. By the order dated 17 th August, 2000, the said application was allowed. The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner directed that the Trust be registered and entries be made in public trust register. 3 A change report was filed by the predecessor of the Appellants. The change report was rejected by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner by the order dated 7 th March, 2000. 4 In revision applications preferred before the Joint Charity Commissioner, both the orders were set aside and the change report filed at the instance of the predecessor of the Appellants was accepted. By the impugned judgment and order, the order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner in revision applications has been set aside. The District Judge has not disturbed the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner of setting aside the orders passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, but has remanded both the inquiries to the Assistant Charity Commissioner for fresh adjudication. 5 The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that the District Court held that the revisions applications were not filed within the limitation. He submitted that there are no reasons recorded for passing the order of remand. He submitted that no case was made out by the Respondents for passing an order of remand. 3 101 fa.109.11 anr 6 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The result of the impugned order is that both the the orders passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, which were challenged by the Appellants have been set aside and the Assistant Charity Commissioner has been ordered to hold a fresh inquiry. In paragraph No.12 of the impugned order, reasons have been assigned for passing the order of remand. The learned District Judge felt that since the dispute was about title to the immovable property, a fresh adjudication by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner was necessary. 7 No substantial question of law arises for admitting these appeals against the order of remand. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. 8 All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. The Assistant Charity Commissioner shall conclude the inquiry as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today. 9 Civil Application No. 694 of 2011 and Civil Application No. 695 of 2011 do not survive and the same are disposed of. [ A.S.OKA, J ]