IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 209 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 801 OF 2009 AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 96 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 277 OF 2009. Atalbahaddur Singh & Ors. ..... ..... ...Appellants. V/s Commander Kehar Singh V.S.M. & Ors. ..... ...Respondents. Mr.F.E.D'vitre, Sr.Counsel i/by Mr.Amol Doijode, Adv. For the appellant in F.A.No.209/09. Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdar, Sr.Counsel i/by M/s.Madekar & Co. Adv. for the appellants in F.A.No.96/09. Mr.Amol Doijode, Adv. For respondents. Mr.Phiroze Colabawalla with Mr.S.Y.Doijode and Mr.K.G.Mhatre, i/by M/s.Doijode & Asso. Adv. For respondent Nos. 5 & 7. Mr.Clive D' Souza i/by Shabbir Rasiwala, Adv. For respondent No.1. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 13th FEBRUARY, 2009. PC: These appeals though registered as First Appeals are in substance second appeals as they question an order passed by the City Civil Court passed under section 72(2) of the Bombay Public Trusts 1 Act and these appeals have been filed under section 72(4) of the said act. The City Civil Court has condoned the delay of 17 days. 2. The appellants herein intimated a change in administration of the Trust by filing a change report on 3.8.2007 and the intimation was in regard to changes effected in the Managing Committee on account of holding of an election purportedly on 27.7.2007. The change report was allowed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner by an order dated 7.9.07. Aggrieved thereby an appeal was carried by the respondents before the Joint Charity Commissioner and separate application for condonation of delay of 17 days was made. However strangely enough the First Appellate Court/Joint Charity Commissioner rejected the application. On rejection of the application, though appeal was maintainable, the respondents chose to file writ petition before the learned Single Judge of this Court seeking condonation of delay. During pendency of the writ petition permission was sought to delete respondent Nos. 5 to 26 in the writ petition and the same was granted at the risk of writ petitioner. On the next date when the matter came up before the learned Judge writ petition was withdrawn and the Court permitted filing of an appeal before the City Civil Court within stipulated time frame. Consequent upon the liberty granted City Civil Court was moved by filing an application under section 72 of the act. It is thus clear that various proceedings are taken up and parties are moving from court-to-court, only for condonation of delay of 17 days. In these appeals as well 2 technical issues are raised. However I do not propose to go into those questions. The fact remains that substance of the matter cannot be permitted to be lost while seeking adherence to the technicalities. It is settled position of law that in the matter of condonation of delay approach of the Court has to be pragmatic and not pedantic. An order passed by the City Civil Court condoning the delay of 17 days in filing of application under section 72 of B.P.T Act does not call for any interference. Even otherwise the present appeals being in the nature of second appeals unless substantial question of law emerges for consideration the appeals cannot be entertained. In the matter of condonation of delay of 17 days what comes into play is the discretion. In the result there being no merit in the appeals same are dismissed summarily. In view of disposal of the appeals Civil Applications do not survive and the same are also disposed of. 13.2.2009. 3