1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.459 OF 2008. Shri Balaji Sansthan Khallar (Khallar Balaji) Tq.Distt.Amravati thr.Trustees Damodhar s/o Marotrao Dahake and ors. ..vs.. Sau.Veena Rajkishor Kaul and others. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- C ORAM : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. DATED : 12th October, 2009. 1. Heard Mr.S.P.Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Saoji, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This second appeal is preferred against the order passed by the District Judge – I, Amravati on an application under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. 3. The facts are that - There is a trust known as Balaji Santhan, Khallar. An enquiry with regard to the said trust was 2 held being Enquury No.24 of 1966. By order dated 22/2/1969 the said trust was held to be a Public Trust. The Trust, it is alleged, owned the temple as well as two fields. This order was challenged in appeal No.36 of 1969 before the Deputy Charity Commissioner. The same came to be dismissed in 1972. Therefore, an application No.36/1972 was preferred before the District Judge. The said application was allowed by the District Judge and he set aside both the orders of Assistant Charity Commissioner as well as Deputy Charity Commissioner against which the trust preferred an appeal before the High Court. The said appeal was allowed to be withdrawn with a permission to file a civil suit for declaration. The matter was, however, enquired into by the Assistant Charity Commissioner as well as the Deputy Charity Commissioner once again, and Joint Charity Commissioner passed an order allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner dated 27/9/2005 directing the deletion of entry from public trust register and directing the Assistant Charity Commissioner to make a fresh enquiry as to whether it was a public trust or a private trust. Feeling aggrieved thereby, appeal No.138 of 2007 was preferred. The District Judge after hearing the parties remanded the matter back to the Joint Charity 3 Commissioner for hearing the appeal afresh. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order of remand of the said matter to the Joint Charity Commissioner was not proper. 4. After hearing the submissions of both the counsel, I do not find that the order that is passed by the District Judge suffers from any infirmity or illegality. He has, in fact, directed fresh hearing of the appeal and fresh decision therein. None of the rights of the parties, in fact, are therefore decided by the order of the District Judge. In view of this, I do not find any substance in the appeal. Hence, it is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this court may pass the order of injunction restraining respondents from interfering with the suit property. It is made clear that the appellant is at liberty to move the Joint Charity Commissioner under the Bombay Public Trust Act for an order of injunction. With these observations, the appeal is dismissed in limine. The Joint Charity Commissioner shall decide the said appeal within period of three months positively. JUDGE. Chute 4