( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 611 OF 2009 Vinayak s/o Vithal Kedar and others. APPELLANTS VERSUS Tukaram s/o Rambhau Gadakh and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, advocate for the appellants. Mr. V.D. Sapkal, advocate for respondents No. 1 to 9. Mr. V.S. Bedre, advocate for respondent No. 12. Mr. V.D. Sapkal, advocate for respondent No. 13. Mr. S.D. Kaldate, AGP for respondent No. 14. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 10th December, 2009] PER COURT : 1. This appeal is being disposed of at the interim stage itself in view of narrow realm of matrix of disputed questions. 2. It is not necessary to elaborately set out the rival pleadings. Suffice it to say that one Tukaram ( 2 ) Rambhau Gadakh was President of a Public Trust, known as “Hanuman Gramin Vikas Va Sanshodhan Mandal, Panaswadi”. He moved an application before the Assistant Charity Commissioner under section 50A (2) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 for amalgamation of the said Trust with another Trust called “Sai Krupa Dnyanprasarak Sanstha”. The Assistant Charity Commissioner issued notices. There was due publication of the notice calling for objections, if any, from the villagers. It appears that none objected at the relevant time and, therefore, the proposal was approved by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. 3. The present appellants were aggrieved due to the formation of scheme of amalgamation of the two Public Trusts. They preferred an application under section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act in the District Court, Ahmednagar. There was delay of 76 days in filing of such application. Consequently, they filed application for condonation of delay. They asserted that the delay was unintentional and was caused due to lack of information regarding the publication of notices ( 3 ) as well as the final order rendered by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. They further submitted that twenty (20) applicants were required to deliberate as to whether application should be preferred. They contended that time was consumed in contacting each other, obtaining of the certified copies and approaching the counsel. Hence, they sought condonation of the delay. 4. The application was opposed by the present respondents on the ground that the explanation is dis- satisfactory. It was contended that there was no sufficient cause as required under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay. It was pointed out that the Assistant Charity Commissioner got published the notices and one of the notice was even affixed at the conspicuous place in the office of the Village Panchayat. On these premises, the respondents sought dismissal of the application. 5. Considering the rival contentions and material placed on record, the learned District Judge was pleased to dismiss the delay condonation application. The fall- ( 4 ) out of such dismissal was the dismissal of appeal itself. Consequently, this second appeal is preferred by the original applicants. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that the application was moved by the President of the Trust for joinder of the two Trusts under a common scheme. The applicants were interested parties being the founder members and trustees of the said Trust called “Sai Krupa Dnyanprasarak Sanstha, Shevgaon”. They asserted that without common consensus of the trustees of said Trust, the President could not have moved the application. They contended that it was unilateral act of Tukaram Rambhau Gadakh, who is a political heavy weight and as such, the application under section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act should have been entertained because there was no intentional delay as such. 7. The only substantial question of law involved in this second appeal is as follows : “Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the ( 5 ) present case, the learned District Judge committed patent error while dismissing the application for condonation of delay and that the application preferred by the applicants under section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act ought to have been entertained ? 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and as such, should not be entertained. I do not find substance in this contention. For, the very right of seeking the relief under section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act came to be frustrated due to dismissal of the application. It is of common knowledge that proceedings under section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act are in nature of an appeal though the nomenclature thereof is an application. The applicants submitted that the delay was due to lack of communication. The learned District Judge held that since notices were published, it could be assumed that the applicants were aware of the proceedings under section 50-A (2) of the Bombay Public ( 6 ) Trusts Act. The learned District Judge held that the explanation was dis-satisfactory. 9. It is pertinent to notice that the earlier publication of the notice by itself cannot be taken as a ground to believe that the final outcome of the proceedings before the Assistant Charity Commissioner was also known to the applicants. The applicants were unlikely to gain anything by committing delay. They were required to reach common decision of filing the application against the order for amalgamation of the two Trusts. It appears that applicant No. 1 Vinayak adduced evidence in support of the application. No evidence was given by the respondents. It has come on record that applicant No. 1 Vinayak is founder Secretary of the Trust called “Sai Krupa Dnyanprasarak Sanstha, Shevgaon”. The Secretary could not agitate his grievances against order of amalgamation, may be due to the lack of knowledge in respect of the final order rendered by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The delay appears to be unintentional. There was publication of the notice on 17-06-2002. The learned ( 7 ) Assistant Charity Commissioner finally decided the application on 19-10-2002. Framing of scheme requires consideration of several factors, including the probability of benefit to the Trust and the convenience of the trustees of both the Trusts which were amalgamated. The explanation about the delay cannot be regarded as illusory. In the field of social work, it is always possible that time is consumed in collecting the necessary information and joining of the concerned persons together for common action plan. The application could be entertained by taking liberal approach while considering the delay condonation application. 10. There cannot be duality of opinion that in the context of delay condonation application, the Court is required to take liberal view since the normal attitude is to allow the concerned litigant to put forth his stance than to scuttle the proceedings at the primary stage. The learned District Judge did not take pragmatic view of the matter. Considering these aspects, the delay deserves to be condoned. ( 8 ) 11. In the result, the impugned order rendered by the learned District Judge is set aside by allowing the present appeal. The learned District Judge shall entertain the application under section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, which is restored and the same shall be decided on its own merits within a reasonable time of six months, as far as possible. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa611-09