: 1 : SD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.3114 OF 2006 FIRST APPEAL NO.3114 OF 2006 FIRST APPEAL NO.3114 OF 2006 WITH WITH WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.3115 OF 2006 FIRST APPEAL NO.3115 OF 2006 FIRST APPEAL NO.3115 OF 2006 Nitin M. Chordiya & Anr. ...Appellants (In both the Appeals) V/s. Shashank S. Manerikar & Ors. ...Respondents (In both the Appeals) Ms.Gauri Jadhav, Advocate, for the Appellants. Mr.N.V. Bandiwadekar, Advocate, for Respondent No.1. Mr.P.B. Shah, Advocate, for Respondent Nos.3, 4a & 5. Mr.Jitendra M. Pathade, Advocate, h/f. R.V. Govilkar, for Respondent Nos.6 to 15. Mr.Balkrishna Joshi, Advocate, for Respondent Nos.16 and 20. Mr.P.N. Joshi, Advocate, i/b. Vivek Salunkhe, for Respondent Nos.17, 18 & 19. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 4TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 4TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 4TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. The challenge in these Appeals is to the Judgment and Order dated 6th October, 2006 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-II, Nasik in Civil Miscellaneous Application Nos.3 and 4 of 2005. : 2 : 2. The said Applications were filed under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The challenge in the said Applications was to an order passed in Appeal Nos.27 and 28 of 2002 by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner. The Appeals before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner arose out of the Change Report Nos.53 of 2000 and 54 of 2000. Change Report No.53 of 2000 was filed in respect of retirement of five trustees of the Trust in question and Change Report No.54 of 2000 was filed for recording appointment of the new office bearers amongst the trustees. The said Change Reports were initially allowed. In Revision Applications preferred before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, there was an order of remand passed and the Change Reports were remanded for fresh inquiry to the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nashik. After the remand, the Change Reports were transferred to the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner, Mumbai under the orders of the learned Charity Commissioner. The said Change Reports were accordingly decided by the Deputy Charity Commissioner. The Appeals before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner arose out of the orders passed in proceedings in Change Reports after the remand. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the learned Ad-hoc : 3 : District Judge has set aside the orders passed by the authorities below and has remanded both the Change Reports to the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner for disposal afresh. The main ground on which order of remand was passed is that after the Change Reports were transferred to the Deputy Charity Commissioner at Mumbai, notices were not issued to all the concerned opponents and notices were issued only to the 1st respondent in the present First Appeals. 2. The submission of the learned Advocate for the appellants made on earlier date was that all concerned parties were served with the notices by the office of the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner of the Change Report proceedings. Therefore, time was granted to the Advocate for the appellants to produce certified copy of Roznama and other documents to show service of notice to all concerned parties after the transfer of Change Report proceedings to the Deputy Charity Commissioner. Accordingly a compilation containing Roznama and certified copies of the notices issued by the Deputy Charity Commissioner has been produced by the appellants. 3. The submission of the learned Advocate for the appellants is that the 1st respondent was authorised : 4 : to represent all concerned respondents. Reliance has been placed by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants on certain documents which purport to show that the other contesting opponents to the Change Reports had given an authority to the 1st respondent to represent them. Reliance is also placed on the resolution dated 28th June, 1998 to show that the 1st respondent was authorised by the others. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. At the outset, it must be noted that though the present Appeals are numbered as First Appeals, in view of the settled position of law, the Appeals will be governed by the constraints of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Therefore, unless a substantial question of law exists, the Appeals cannot be entertained. I have perused the Roznama of the proceedings before the Deputy Charity Commissioner as well as certified copies of the relevant documents produced by the appellants. The said documents show that notice was issued by the Deputy Charity Commissioner only to the 1st respondents. It was sought to be submitted that one of the other respondents appeared before the Deputy Charity Commissioner through an Advocate. Reliance was placed on a writing which is on page 31 of the Application : 5 : for stay. The said writing will not help the appellants as the same does not bear any date. Reliance is placed on resolution dated 28th June, 1998. Even the said resolution does not authorise the 1st respondent to accept service of notice of the proceedings of the Change Report on behalf of the other respondents. 5. The Change Report proceedings were transferred from the office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nasik to the Deputy Charity Commissioner at Bombay. Principles of natural justice required that notices ought to have been issued to all concerned parties by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Bombay. While deciding Application under Section 72 of the said Act of 1950, the learned Ad-hoc District Judge has recorded a finding of fact that except 1st respondent, notices were not served by the Deputy Charity Commissioner to the other respondents. The said finding of fact appears to be correct after perusal of the Roznama of the proceedings and certified copies of the other documents which are produced on record by the Advocate for the appellants. Result of the impugned order is that all concerned parties will be given an opportunity to appear before the Deputy Charity Commissioner and to contest the Change : 6 : Reports. No substantial question of law arises. There is no merit in the Appeal. Hence I pass following order:- "O R D E R" "O R D E R" "O R D E R" (a). The Appeals are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (b). Parties are directed to appear before the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner on 25th February, 2008 at 11:00 a.m. (c). The learned Deputy Charity Commissioner shall make an endeavour to decide the Change Report proceedings as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. (d). All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. (e). In view of dismissal of the Second Appeals, Civil Applications therein do not : 7 : survive and the same are disposed of accordingly. (f). Though Civil Application No.2842 of 2007 is disposed of, it is obvious that all contentions raised by the applicants in the said Civil Application are kept open which can be agitated before the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]