1 wp8599.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8599 OF 2010 [Paulas Gendaji Viragar vs.Bhalchandra Daulat Salvi & Anr.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. A.S. Zarekar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.S.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondents. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 7TH JULY, 2011 PER COURT : Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. According to Counsel for the petitioner, the proceeding which in the nature of application, is not a suit or any other proceedings. Therefore, in such a proceeding, further permission can be granted to lead evidence and add the documents. According to Counsel for the petitioner, application Exhibit-86 in Inquiry NO.494 of 2002 should have been allowed by the Assistant Charity 2 wp8599.10 Commissioner, Ahmednagar. 2. I have carefully perused the impugned order. In para-7 of the impugned order, Assistant Charity Commissioner has observed thus : "7. After going through the application and documents and evidence recorded by my Ld. predecessor, I found that, application is of 2002 as well as what the argument advanced by Ld. Adv. Shri. Gore is very convincing. I have gone through the say filed by the opponent. I found that, applicant has filed an affidavit in lieu of evidence on 17.7.2004 vide exh.23 as well as an affidavit in lieu of witness exh.29, evidence close pursis, written argument exh. 55 as well as this authority, since 15.4.2009 till today i.e. more than one year has given sufficient opportunity to applicant to proceed with the application. The applicant has filed adjournment applications as well as this authority allowed the 3 wp8599.10 said applications which are at exhs. 78, 79 & 81 to 84 and this application is also for adjournment as well as applicant has used word "rgdwc", that means he wanted to stop the proceedings which cannot be possible being the old matter. The application is old one of 2002 as well as the opponent is also old age person and applicant has not satisfied the stage to go back to lead first evidence when the application is already posted for the argument as well as applicant has filed written argument and evidence close pursis." 3. Upon reading last five lines of Para-7 of the impugned order, it is clear that the application is filed in 2002. The petitioners herein have already filed evidence close pursis. Therefore, in my opinion, the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Ahmednagar was justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner. 4 wp8599.10 4. Hence no interference is warranted. Writ Petition stands dismissed. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/JUL11