1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2010 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 830 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 4065 OF 1993 1. Rohinton Jamshetji Turel & Anr. .. Appellants Vs. Pallonji Shapoorji Charity Trust .. Respondent Mr. Parways D. Bhumgar for appellants. Mr. Vishal Kanade a/w Nikhil Rodrigues i/by Desai & Diwanji for respondent. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & C. L. PANGARKAR, JJ. January 27, 2010. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Bhumgar the learned counsel for the appellants – original defendants. In Suit No. 4065 of 1993, Chamber Summons No. 830 of 2008 came to be filed to amend the plaint to implead the trustees as plaintiffs and the same has been allowed. The learned Judge referred to an identical order passed in a connected Suit i.e. Suit No. 154 of 1994 wherein Chamber Summons No. 463 of 2008 was allowed as per the order dated 2 2/12/2008 for the very same amendment and that order had received finality. 2. Mr. Bhumgar pointed out that the Chamber Summons was moved by the Constituted Attorney and not by the trustees themselves and, therefore, the Constituted Attorney had no power and in any case he could not have acted as the Power of Attorney of the trustees sought to be added as the plaintiffs. 3. Mr. Kanade the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has pointed out that along with the Chamber Summons, two additional documents, namely, the Power of Attorney dated 12/3/1993 and the General Power of Attorney dated 10/7/2003 were annexed. The second power of attorney is by (1) Mrs. Patsy Pallonji Mistry w/o Pallonji Shapoorji Mistry, (2) Shri Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry and (3) Mr. Cyrus Pallonji Mistry. Whereas the first power of attorney is by Shri Pallonji Shapoorji Mistry. Thus all the four trustees have appointed Shri Captain, who filed the Chamber Summons, as their power of attorney. As per Order VI Rule 14 and 15 of C.P.C. the pleadings could be signed by any person duly authorized and such a person has the power to sue or defend on behalf of the persons who 3 appoint him as the power of attorney. 4. We have also noted that when the Chamber Summons was heard, nobody appeared for the present appellants and despite more than one opportunities having been granted, they chose to be unrepresented. Mr. Kanade has also invited our attention to the Full Bench decision of this court in Second Appeal No. 116 of 1998 and Writ Petition No. 3749 of 2008, on a reference being made. The said decision dated 10/12/2009 holds that Section 47 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 applies only to the private trusts and not to the public trusts. 5. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned in this intra court appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed in limine. 6. On the oral application made by the learned counsel for the appellants, time to file Written Statement is extended by two weeks from today. (C. L. PANGARKAR, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)