- 1 - rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1019 OF 2009 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2917 OF 2009 Tatabo Shamrao Jujare .. Appellant vs Narsinha Shikshan Prasarak Mandal .. Respondents Mr.V.A.Shatry for Appellant Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for Respdonent nos. 1 to 3 Ms S.V.Sonavane AGP for Respondent no.4 CORAM: R.V.MORE,J DATED: October 1st, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Shastry and Mr.Patwardhan for the respective parties. The proceedings arises out of change of report filed under section 22 of the Bombay Public Act which pertains to the year 1996-97. Admittedly, the appellant no.1 was the Secretary and the appellant no.3 was the President of Narsinha Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, the respondent no.1 prior to 1996. By a notice dated 5.6.1996 a meeting of the general body meeting was called on 26.6.1996 to elect the managing committee. In this meeting, 15 trustees were elected including the respondent nos. 2,3 and 4 and thereafter change report as mentioned above was submitted to the Dy.Charity Commissioner. - 2 - 2. The change report was objected by the present opponents on the ground that the notice for the meeting of the general body as well as resolution passed in the general body are bogus. The learned Dy.Charity Commissioner by his order dated 20th June, 1996 rejected the change report. The respondents filed an appeal before the Joint Charity Commissioner. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner after hearing both the sides set aside the order of the Dy.Charity Commissioner and the change report filed by the respondents was accepted. The appellant preferred an appeal to the District Court under section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust and the same was dismissed and therefore, the present appeal. 3. Notice dated 5.6.1996 calling for the meeting of the general body is signed by the appellant no.3 in his capacity as President of the respondent no.1 trust. The proceedings of the general body which was held on 26.6.1996 is signed by all the appellants. In this meeting, new managing committee was elected. Since the notice as well as proceedings of the minutes of the meeting are signed by the appellant it is not open for them to challenge the legality of the same. The membership of the appellant to the respondent no.1 trust is kept intact. The Joint Charity Commissioner as well as the District Court have held that the respondents have not played any fraud. Be that as it may, the appellants - 3 - have not examined any independent witnesses to prove the said fraud. 4. Mr.Shastry, learned counsel for the appellants relies upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court in Mallikarjunnappa Sidramappa Bidve & ors vs. Joint Charity Commissioner reported in 2008 (1) Bom C.R. 172 and contended that though the appeal is in the nature of second appeal, however, the court is not bound by the parameters that circumscribe second appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure to only substantial point of law. Since I have come to the conclusion that the notice, the meeting of the general body are valid and legal, this judgment will not come to the rescue of the appellant. 5. In the above circumstances, I do not find any reason so as to enable me to interfere in the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal Civil Application does not survive and same is dismissed. R.V.More, J