1 CA 5023/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD C. A. NO. 5023/2011 IN S. A. NO. 370/2010 BHAGWANDAS GURU RANGIRAM VS. CHHOTELAL S/O PURANSHING ARORA AND ANOTHER Mr. J.N. Sing, Advocate, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. R.K. Khandelwal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. K.B. Choudhari, A.G.P. for respondent No.2. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 25th July, 2011. PER COURT: 1. Heard. 2. This application is moved by the applicant / appellant for recording certain compromise that has taken place during the pendeny of the appeal between the applicant / appellant on one side and respondent No.1 on the other. Respondent No.1 is represented by his advocate who is present before Court and he vouches for the compromise that has taken place earlier. Both of them therefore, sought favourable order on the appeal in as much as they want the appeal to be allowed. Respondent No.2 the Joint Charity Commissioner opposes this move. The learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 asserts that the appeal cannot be allowed on the basis of compromise that has taken place between the appellant and respondent No.1, because, the impugned orders held the appellant guilty of the breach of trust, misfeasance, malfeasance of the public trust property. These findings were recorded because respondent No. 1 had filed a complaint against the applicant / appellant. 2 CA 5023/2011 3. It is true that the appellant and respondent No.1 have arrived at a compromise but the compromise that was recorded before the Supreme Court, was in a criminal case, which respondent No.1 initiated under section 500 of Indian Penal Code against the applicant / appellant and in which the applicant / appellant was convicted through out. The parties arrived at compromise and respondent No.1 withdrew his complaint as far as the offence of defamation etc. is concerned. The criminal case has thus ended in acquittal due to the compounding. However, apparently, that event may not have much effect on the outcome of the second appeal which is pending before this Court. No doubt, this subsequent event about compromise would be taken into account while the Court would decide this appeal. In addition, if the Court finds that since the appellant was convicted, he was also held to be disqualified, would also be subject of discussion while disposing of the appeal. So, the appeal can not be disposed of. The applicant / appellant will have to convince the Court that on merits also the appeal deserves to be allowed. The appeal shall be heard for admission on next occasion. The application stands disposed of. [A.V. NIRGUDE,J.] ts k/2011/July25/ca5023.11