1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR First Appeal No. 480/2009 1. SUBHASH S/O JAGANNATHRAO THODGE AND ANR R/O RAMPUR, BALEGAON, YAVATMAL 2. BHASKAR S/O NARAYANRAO KALE R/O KAPSI, HINGANGHAT, WARDHA .. PETITIONER/S VERSUS 1. SHRI YESHWANT MAHADEORAO VAIRAGADE AND 7 ORS VILALGE KALMANA, RALEGAON, YAVTMAL 2. MANOHAR MAROTRAO SHENDE R/O KAPSI, SHINGANGHAT, WARDHA 3. VILAS MAHADEORAO VAIDYA PAUNAR, WARDHA 4. MADHAORAO SHANKARRAO CHANDANKHEDE R/O HINGANGHAT, WARDHA 5. MANGESH MAROTRAO BOBDE R/O HINGANGHAT, WARDHA 6. SHESHRAO NAMDEO LONAR R/O RALEGAON, YAVATMAL 7. DHARAMRAJ BHAURAO WANDILE R/O KAPSI, HINGANGHAT, WARDHA 8. JT. CHARITY COMMISSIONER, NAGPUR .. RESPONDENT/S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.A. Bari, counsel for the appellant. Shri S.V. Sohoni, counsel for the R-1 to 7. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 17, 2009. Shri Sohoni, the learned counsel for the respondents, has raised a preliminary objection to the 2 tenability of this appeal on the ground that the order passed by the District Judge on 31.03.2009 and challenged by the appellants by the present first appeal is not an order passed under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 but, is merely an order passed on an application for execution of the scheme for the management which was framed by the learned District Judge on 24.12.1969. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that by filing the necessary applications before the District Judge, Wardha, the parties were merely seeking the execution of the order which was passed by the learned District Judge on 24.12.1969 whilst framing the scheme. According to the learned counsel for the respondent clause 9(a) of the Scheme states that the trustees will be appointed for a terms of five years by the District Court, Wardha, after hearing the Charity Commissioner and the trustees will continue in Office even after expiry of their term in office, till new trustees take charge. It is also stated in clause 9(a) of the scheme that it will be lawful for the Charity Commissioner or any person having interest to apply to the Court for appointment of new trustees, if the trustees for the time being do not apply till expiry of their term of trusteeship. Thus, it is apparent from a reading of clause 9(a) of the scheme framed by the learned District Judge, Wardha 3 by the order dated 24.12.1969 that the parties in the present matter had applied to the District Judge for appointment of new trustees. Shri Bari, the learned counsel for the appellants, however, states that the order passed by the District Judge on the trust applications on 31.03.2009 is an order under the provisions of Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and, hence, the order passed by the District Judge is appealable before this Court under Section 72(4) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The submission made on behalf of the appellants is not well founded. It is apparent from the scheme framed by the learned District Judge by the order dated 24.12.1969 that the appellants and some of the respondents had approached the learned District Judge by filing separate applications for execution and implementation of the scheme framed by the order dated 24.12.1969. The order is passed by the learned District Judge for executing the executable part of the scheme under Clause 9(a) thereof. It would be necessary to refer to the judgment reported in 1980 Mh.L.J. 25 and relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents in that regard. The order dated 31.03.2009 is not one under Section 72 of the Public Trusts Act, 1950, as it is not 4 passed on an application challenging the decision of the Charity Commissioner under Section 40, 41, 41(C), 43(2)(a) & (c), 50(A), 70 or 70(A) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Since the objection raised on behalf of the respondents to the tenability of the appeal is well founded, the first appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. At this juncture, Shri Bari, the learned counsel for the appellants, prays that the status quo granted by this Court on 10.08.2009 may be continued only for a period of three weeks so that the appellants may file the appropriate proceedings for challenging the order dated 31.03.2009. Though the learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellants, since the order of status quo is operational since 10.08.2009, it is necessary to continue the said order for a period of three weeks from today. The order dated 10l.08.2009 to continue for a period of three weeks from today. JUDGE APTE