1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 74 of 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 27/1990 Baburao Kishanrao Udarbhare and others Vs. The Charity Commissioner, Bombay and others Mr. A.B. Dhongade, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. B.N.Patil, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM: A.V. NIRGUDE, J. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2 This is an application seeking review of the order which this Court had passed by consent of the parties. By the consent order, the dispute apparently got settled. The appellants were represented by their advocate and he on instructions invited the order by consent. The appellants now say when their advocate gave consent for the impugned order, they were not present in the Court. They say, only one of them was present in the Court. 3 I am afraid, they can not now make a grievance on this count. Their advocate was fully empowered to record the consent of the applicants. 4 The applicants also say that while consent order was passed, their advocate agreed for 15% share in the income of the Trust for the applicants. They say that in earlier negotiations, there was an agreement 2 between the parties that the applicants would get 50% of the income of the Trust. I am afraid, when the impugned order by consent was passed, the parties closed the negotiations and arrived finally at certain figure and that is mentioned in the order. What happened earlier to that, was not relevant now. This litigation is pending since long and it is essentially a dispute between the applicants who are priests (and who are members of four families) and the Trust over the sharing of the income of the Trust and offering to the deity. Until today, the applicants are not only managing the property of the Trust but are appropriating the offering made to the deity, despite the fact that the Trust is registered long back. It is, in this back ground, the parties arrived at compromise and agreed for an arrangement which would probably usher in better management of the Trust and the Temple. Unless the agreement between the parties recorded in the impugned order is crystallized in the proposed scheme, it will not be possible for any one to appreciate grievance of the applicants. I think, they should wait until the scheme is framed, it is implemented and they receive 15% income as agreed between the parties for some time. Thereafter, they may apply to the authorities for increasing their share in the income and offerings at the Temple. However, the applicants shall not make such application for at least one year from the date of the implementation of the proposed scheme. 5 The application stands disposed. 16thJune,2010 (A.V.NIRGUDE,J. ) tsk/ok 3