IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2482 OF 2009 Chetna Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through the Secretary and others. .. Petitioners Versus Dr. Maya d/o. Limbaji Ladwani and others. .. Respondents. -- Mr. Vivek Dhage, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. H.H. Waghmare, Advocate for respondent NO.1 Mr. Shripad Kulkarni Advocate for respondent NO.2. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI,J. DATE : 8th July, 2009. . By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 20th March, 2009, vide which the learned District Judge has remanded the matter to the Deputy Charity Commissioner, by framing two additional issues, which are as under :- . “i] Whether the reporting trustees prove the genuineness, authenticity, correctness and execution of notice book ?“ ii} Whether the reporting trustees prove the genuineness, authenticity, correctness and execution of proceeding book?" Shri Dhage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned District Judge, has no power to remand under Order 41 Rule 23 of C.P.C. and as such, the order of remand is without jurisdiction. He relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court, in the matter of “ Vasantrao Mane Vs. Apparao Sidore and others” reported in 2008(3)Mh.L.J. 242. Shri Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the respondent NO.2 submits that the Apex Court in case of “Ramchandra Pandit Vs. Charity Commissioner of Gujarat” reported in AIR 1987 SC 1598, has held that the District Court has all the powers of the appellate court, which are available to the District Court while deciding the application under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. He, therefore, submits that no case is made out for interference. . Smt. Waghmare, learned counsel for the respondent submit that the contention of the petitioner is without any substance. Though the learned Single Judge of this court in the case of “Vasantrao” (supra) has held that the District Judge has no specific powers for remanding the matter for recording evidence. It appears that he has not noticed the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Ramchandra Pandit" (Supra). However, perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court cited supra, would reveal that the Supreme Court has observed that the proceedings before the District Court under Section 72(1) are in the nature of an appeal and that the District Judge has jurisdiction under Section 72(1). It has been further held that all the characteristics of an appeal and all the powers of an appellate court are available with the District Court while deciding an application under Section 72. In that view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Court has no power to remand the matter for recording additional evidence. The petition is, therefore, found to be without any merit and as such, the same is dismissed. [B.R. GAVAI, J.] GRT/-