1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3007 OF 2010. (Shri Priyadarshini Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha -: versus :- Sau. Lalita Sureshrao Undre and others.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 06, 2010. Heard Shri Anjan De, learned counsel for petitioner. Application of petitioner to lead additional evidence has been rejected by the Joint Charity Commissioner. Shri De, learned counsel contends that order shows total non application of mind, because wrong provisions (Order 41 Rule 30 C.P.C.) has been mentioned as source and correct provisions i.e. Section 70-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act has not been looked into. His contention is, thus there is failure to exercise jurisdiction. 2 I have perused the impugned order. I find that in appeal before the Joint Charity Commissioner, order accepting change report filed by the present petitioner has been questioned. The appellants have raised certain contentions therein and because of those contentions, petitioner wanted to lead additional evidence alleging that those contentions require that evidence. If the contentions raised in appeal memo are not based on material available on record, the Joint Charity Commissioner can proceed further in accordance with law in the matter. The petitioner need not lead any additional evidence to bring material on record to help the appellants. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. However, petitioner is at liberty to challenge the impugned order after final decision in appeal, if occasion therefor arise. Writ Petition is thus dismissed, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.