1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2008 Jagannath Ramjathan Mishra vs. Farari Baba Kuti Ellichpur Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. FEBRUARY 21, 2008. Heard Shri Jaipurkar, learned counsel for the appellant - original defendant. The challenge is to the reversing judgment. The suit filed by the plaintiff for possession claiming present appellant/ original defendant to be licensee and in illegal occupation came to be dismissed on 27.2.1998. The plaintiff then filed Regular Civil Appeal which came to be allowed. Shri Jaipurkar, learned counsel has raised two contentions. He firstly points out that nature of suit underwent change because the suit as filed was in personal capacity initially and after the public trust was registered, the Trust was made as plaintiff and thus in place of original plaintiff the suit came to be instituted by the Trust. He further contends that the trial Court has also found 2 that there was no map produced on record and extent of encroachment was also not specified. He argues that both these aspects are not considered in Regular Civil Appeal. The perusal of appellate Court judgment, however, reveals that the appellate Court has found that the present appellant was licensee of respondent – plaintiff and not tenant as claimed by him. It further found that rent receipts produced by him were not in relation to suit property. There is a finding that Will dated 7.9.1977 (Exh. 96) has been found to be proved by the trial Court. The appellate Court has, therefore, found that the property belonged to public trust and suit was filed in personal capacity when trust was unregistered only to protect the interest of Trust. It further found that in view of this position, as the respondent – plaintiff was owner of entire property, the map as required by Order 7 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code was not necessary. In view of this position, I do not find any substantial question of law arising in this Second Appeal. The same is dismissed. No order as to costs. 3 After the order is dictated, the learned counsel for the appellant sought permission to argue the matter again on the ground that he wants to rely upon judgment contending that suit could not have been filed by the plaintiff in his personal capacity and it should have been filed as a Managing Trustee of the public trust. The reliance is being placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Arya Vaidya Sala vs. K.C. Vijay Kumar, reported at AIR 1990 Delhi 158. The perusal of judgment shows that suit there was filed by Managing Trustee when the trust was already registered. Here, the trust was not already registered at the time of institution of the Suit. The judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court has no application to the facts of present case. Second Appeal is already dismissed. JUDGE *GS.