1 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2450 OF 2010 Subhash Shivdas Khairnar & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. Ganga Godavari Panchakoti Purohit Sangh & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Tushar Sonawane for the petitioners None for the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : APRIL 5, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the first respondent which is a public charitable trust duly registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act,1950. The suit filed by the petitioners was decreed on 31st July 2002. An appeal was preferred by the first respondent as well as 2nd to 5th respondents who are claiming to be the trustees of the first respondent. By the impugned order, delay of more than 3 years in preferring the appeal has been condoned. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioners invited the attention of the court to the copy of caveat allegedly filed by one Ratnakar Dixit on behalf of the first respondent. He submitted that the said caveat was filed on 8th July 2005 and in the application for condonation of delay, the fact of filing the caveat has been suppressed. He submitted that a factually incorrect statement has been made in the application for condonation of delay that the respondents were not aware 2 of the decree. He submitted that the said Ratnakar who was the secretary of the first respondent is not deliberately made an applicant to the application for condonation of delay. He submitted that said important factual aspect of filing the caveat has been completely overlooked by the learned District Judge. 3 I have considered the submissions. The cause title of the suit filed by the petitioners shows that first respondent public charitable trust was sued through one Radhakrishna Dashrath Dev. An appeal along with application for condonation of delay has been preferred by the first respondent and four others who are claiming to be the trustees of the first respondent. Specific pleading is that 2nd to 5th respondents were not aware of the suit in as much as said Radhakrishna Dev had not informed them about the filing of the suit. It is contended that it was an obligation of the petitioners to implead all the trustees of the first respondent as parties to the suit. The suit was filed by the petitioners by showing the name of only one of the alleged trustees of a public charitable trust as representing the trust. Considering the averments made in the application, the District Court has condoned the delay. The person who has purportedly filed the caveat is not the applicant in the application for condonation of delay. The first respondent-trust suffered a decree of declaration and injunction in the suit filed by the petitioners. It is inconceivable that instead of preferring an appeal, the trust would file a caveat in the District Court. The copy of the caveat annexed to the petition shows that the said Ratnakar Dixit has not disclosed in what capacity he has filed the caveat. The effect of the impugned order is that the delay in 3 preferring the appeal at the instance of a public charitable trust has been condoned. This is not a case where interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India is called for. Writ Petition is rejected. 4 It is obvious that the appeal will be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned order as well as the observations made in this order. JUDGE