VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT Petition No. 2486 OF 2008 Yusuf Ahmed Baig & Ors. Petitioners Vs. Momin Pada Masjid Respondents Yakub Baig Trust & Ors. Mr. N. S. Kadu, for the Petitioners. Mr. Rajiv Patil, for the Respondents. CORAM : A. A. SAYED, J. DATE : JUNE 23, 2008. PC :- 1. The Respondent No.1- Trust had made an application to implead certain beneficiaries, other than the petitioners, in their application being Civ. M.A. No. 64 of 2004 for amendment in the constitution of the scheme of the Trust. The application for impleadment of the said beneficiaries was allowed by the Trial Court, which is challenged by way of this petition. 2. The Respondent No.1 Trust’s application for amendment in the scheme of the Trust initially came to be allowed by order dated 15th July 2004. The - 2 - petitioners herein challenged this order by filing a Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 5345 of 2005, contending that they were not given notice of hearing and their civil rights were affected, in as much as benefit of income of this scheme was sought to be deprived to them, on the basis of the amendment sought to the scheme of the Respondent No.1 Trust. The Division Bench of this Court vide it’s order dated 20th February 2006 remanded the matter to the District Judge, Raigad for reconsideration of Civ. M. A. No. 64 of 2004, after giving notice to the petitioners herein being the beneficiaries of the Respondent No.1 Trust. By this order, the District Judge was also directed to decide Civ. M. A. No. 64 of 2004 within eight weeks from the date of notice being served upon the respondents. 3. During the pendency of Civil M.A. No. 64 of 2004, the Respondent No.1 Trust made an application to implead other beneficiaries to the said Civ. M. A. No. 64 of 2004. It was pointed out that there were certain other beneficiaries and they are also required to be heard before the scheme of the Trust is amended. The trial Court has allowed the amendment for impleadment of the said beneficiaries of the Trust by the impugned order - 3 - dated 15th December 2007. Hence, this petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Civ. M. A. No. 64 of 2004 pending before the District Judge is at the stage for completion of hearing and there has been inordinate delay in filing the application to implead the beneficiaries as party to Civ. M.A. No.64 of 2004. He further submitted that the petitioners have filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of the same issue. 5. However, on going through a copy of the Special Leave Petition, I find that what is challenged before the Apex Court is the order dated 16th March 2007, whereby time was extended by three months to enable the Principal District Judge Raigad Alibag to dispose of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. In my view the subject matter of the present Writ Petition and the proceedings which are pending before the Apex Court, are entirely different. 6. Considering the facts of the case, I am not inclined to exercise writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the impugned order, as the application is - 4 - only to add some of the beneficiaries, which were left out in the earlier Application by the petitioners to be added as parties to the Application No. 64 of 2004 filed by the Respondent No.1- Trust. 7. In my view, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if the amendment is allowed and the beneficiaries are impleaded as parties as they are required to be heard, as their rights are going to be affected and they in that sense necessary parties. Hence, no interference in the impugned order is warranted. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- [ A. A. SAYED, J.]