1 18.wp7384.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7384 OF 2011 Shri Dineshchandra D. Goradia & ors. ....Petitioners. Vs. Shri Shantilal A. Jangla & ors. ....Respondents Mr. A.A.Kumbhakoni with Mr. Rohit Vyas and Mr. Jayen Trivedi, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. Amit Sale, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J DATED:- NOVEMBER 11, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Kumbhakoni, Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. Sale, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. By the impugned Judgment the learned Judge of the City Civil Court has allowed the Chamber Summons No. 925 of 2010 thereby condoning the delay in Charity Application St. No. 5 of 2010. 2. Mr. Kumbhakoni submits that before filing the Application under section 50A(3) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 proposed 2 18.wp7384.11 amendment to the scheme had been discussed in the General Body Meeting which was conducted on 20/5/2007 and the Respondents were aware about the proposed amendment. He further submitted that the amendment as approved by the General Body has been allowed by the ACC in the same terms and, hence, according to Mr. Kumbhakoni there was sufficient notice of the Order which was impugned before the City Civil Court. Mr. Kumbhakoni also contended that the name of the trust was changed and that by itself was a notice to all the members. 3. In so far as the General Body Meeting dated 20/5/2007, the learned Judge of the Trial Court has rightly held that that meeting was prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 7/6/2007amending the scheme. Though it is contended that the Respondents were aware about the amendment, no material has been placed on record before the City Civil Court in support of this submission. In such situation, the learned Judge of the Trial Court has accepted the claim of the Respondent that they became aware about the Order dated 7/6/2007 only in the year 2009. They had thereafter adopted wrong remedy of filing Revision Application which was rejected as not maintainable and thereafter Charity Application under section 72 of the Act was filed. 3 18.wp7384.11 4. Thus, the Respondent had offered a plausible explanation for the delay which was caused in filing Charity Application. The view taken by the Trial Court is possible view and cannot be said to be perverse. The impugned Order is a discretionary order and on the basis of material available before the Trial Court the discretion has been properly exercised. Writ Petition is therefore not entertained and summarily dismissed. It is needless to state that neither the Trial Court nor this Court have gone into merits of the Charity Application. (GIRISH GODBOLE, J)