1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CAZ NO. 464/2009 IN LPA ST. NO. 9092/2009 IN WP NO. 1342 OF 2009 (Shri Hanuman Krishnaji Wankhede vs. Ishwardas Raghunathrao Barde & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. JULY 30, 2009. Heard Shri Ghare, learned counsel for the applicant/ appellant, Shri Abhyankar, learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2 and Mrs. Bodade, learned AGP for respondent No.3. The prayer in the civil application is to condone delay of 32 days in filing LPA Stamp No. 9092 of 2009. After considering the nature of controversy, we have considered the merits of the LPA with the consent of the parties. The order impugned before the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition is one by which the present appellant was directed to produce original records in their custody. The learned Single Judge has reproduced the contentions of present appellant and only objection was that if the records were handed over to the respondents, the petitioners would not be in a position to place those records before the Assistant 2 Charity Commissioner for proving their case that it was a Public trust. The learned Single Judge found that the present respondents were facing difficulties in administering the Trust as observed by the authorities. It appears that the apprehension of the petitioners was also taken care of by directing them to supply copies of original records to the respondents and produce the originals before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The learned counsel for the petitioners before the learned Single Judge has in fact stated that the originals will be produced before the Assistant Charity Commissioner and the learned Single Judge thereupon directed the copies thereof to be handed over to Respondents No. 1 & 2 for smooth administration and functioning of the Trust. Thus, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was accepted by the petitioners and thereafter present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed with prayer to condone delay. In these circumstances, we find that the present Letters Patent Appeal as filed is misconceived and there is no question of condoning delay in filing it. Shri Ghare, learned counsel has made a grievance before us that in the guise of the order, the respondents are trying to enter the administration of the Trust. We are not in a position to construe the order on these lines. The learned Single Judge has not in any way decided the dispute in relation to body 3 administering the affairs of the Trust. Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The appellant is permitted to produce the original documents before the Assistant Charity Commissioner by 3rd August 2009 as it is informed that 3rd August 2009 is the date now fixed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. Another grievance made was that the Enquiry was made time bound in the year 1996. If that be the position, the Assistant Charity Commissioner to decide the enquiry as expeditious as possible. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.