1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 659 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 276 OF 2007 M/s Kanan Investment & Properties ...Plaintiff. Vs. H.H. Shrimad Shivanand Saraswati Swamiji & Ors. ...Defendants. Shri Arun B. Kasbekar ...Applicant Charity Commissioner & Ors. ...Respondents. ---- Mr. Mahendra Rathod a/w Mr. Sunil Patel i/b M/s Sunil & Co., for the Plaintiff/applicant. Mr. Kedar J. Wagle for Defendant nos.1 to 6. Mr. V.S. Lonkar, for Applicants.. ---- CORAM: S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 P.C. 1. By this Chamber Summons the applicant seeks to be impleaded as a defendant. This is on the ground that the applicant is a beneficiary of the Shree Kavaley Math Trust. Defendant nos.2 to 6 are the trustees of the said trust. 2. The suit is filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale sanctioned by the Charity Commissioner by an order dated 09.11.1994. The applicant had challenged the sanction by filing Writ Petition No.2738 of 1994. The writ petition was dismissed for default by an order dated 06.11.2006. By an order dated 15.12.2006, the writ petition was restored 2 to file. By the said order the writ petition was itself disposed of on the ground that it had become infructuous in view of the statement made by the trustees that the suit agreement had been revoked and cancelled. Against this order the applicant had taken out a review petition being Review Petition No.3 of 2007 which was also rejected for the same reasons viz.that the trustees had revoked and cancelled the agreement. The Division Bench further observed that the sanction granted by the Charity Commissioner had become non-est. The Division Bench therefore declined to entertain the review petition. 3. Against this order the plaintiffs i.e. purchaser filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. By an order dated 07.04.2008, the Supreme Court held as under: “Whether for valid or cogent reasons the application for restoration filed by the respondents for restoring the original order dated 16.11.2006 should have been passed or for that matter, the review application filed by them should have been allowed or not, is one question but there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that while refusing to entertain the Notice of Motion for restoration of the writ petition or while disposing of the review petition, any observation made would not affect the right of the petitioner herein in his suit for specific performance of contract.” 4. It is true therefore that the basis on which the order dated 13.06.2007 was passed viz. that the sanction granted by the Charity Commissioner has become non-est no longer exists. This is for the reason that the Supreme Court held that any observation made in the said order would not affect the rights of the petitioner i.e. the plaintiff in this suit to 3 the claim for specific performance in this suit. 5. A beneficiary is not ipso-facto entitled to be impleaded in a suit against the trustees. There is nothing on record to indicate that the trustees are not defending the suit diligently. There is no reason to believe that the trustees will not take every valid defence available in law including that no public offers were invited by the Charity Commissioner. Moreover, a statement is made on behalf of the trustees that they will not compromise the suit in any manner whatsoever without giving notice to the applicant of their intention of doing so at least four weeks in advance. The statement is accepted Although the plaintiff does not make a similar statement, the plaintiff is appearing before me. Therefore, the plaintiff is aware obviously of the same. 6. The applicant is always at liberty to adopt any other proceedings as per law. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the Chamber Summons is dismissed.