1lpa-260-09 ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.260 of 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7417 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No.261 of 2009 Charu K. Mehta .. Appellant(Orig.Petitioner) vs. Jt Charity Commissioner & Ors..Respondents. Shri Aspi Chinoy, Sr.Advocate (with R. Kelkar, P. Sampat i/b M/s Thakore Jariwala & Asso.for the appellant. Mr S.E. Aney, Sr. Advocate with Prateek Saksaria, D.K. Sinha and Jay Kansara i/b M/s Paras Kuhad and Asso. For Respondent No.2. Mrs M.P. Thakur, A.G.P.,for the State (Respondent Nos.1 and 3) 2lpa-260-09 CORAM: BILAL NAZKI AND A.R.JOSHI,JJ DATED: 7TH OCTOBER,2009 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. At every possible or impossible opportunity these parties are litigating. There are dozen of cases pending between the parties in almost every Court in Bombay. This is the 9th appeal in series and the second Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A.). This relates to a matter pending before the Charity Commissioner and the Charity Commissioner is not being allowed to proceed in the matter. An application was made by the petitioner seeking answers to the interrogatories before the Charity Commissioner who has passed an order on 28.8.2009 holding as under:- 3lpa-260-09 According to me the purpose behind interrogatories as claimed in the application can be served even if the application is considered at a later stage. It is not necessary to stay the hearing on the charges and to give preference to this application . 2. It is pointed out by the learned Advocate for the respondents that now the arguments on framing of the charges before the Charity Commissioner are being addressed and the Counsel for the respondents has already finished his argument. The order of the Commissioner was challenged by way of writ petition which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and by this Letters Patent Appeal the order of the learned Single Judge dated 9.9.2009 is challenged. The learned Single Judge relied on an earlier order of the Division Bench passed between the same 4lpa-260-09 parties with respect to the same litigation. The Division Bench of this Court made the following observations:- We have also perused the order of the learned Single Judge and we do not find any ground at this stage to interfere with the same. However, to avoid any confusion, we direct that the Charity Commissioner shall hear the parties, peruse the records made available to him and pass a reasoned order whether charge is to be framed in the matter or not and if the Charity Commissioner comes to the conclusion that charge is to be framed against the appellant, he shall give reasons for framing each of the charges. The Charity Commissioner would be at liberty to either frame or not to frame charge, as he deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and after he passes the order, any 5lpa-260-09 party aggrieved by such order would be at liberty to take any appropriate remedy available to him/her in law. With the above observations, the letters patent appeal is disposed of. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was mandatory for the Charity Commissioner to decide the application before the charges could be framed as Order 14 Rule 3 of C.P.C., was a mandate that the material for framing of the charges including answers to interrogatories were delivered in the suit. We have perused Order 14 Rule 3. Bare perusal of the Rule 3 (b) shows that answers to interrogatories delivered in the suit are material from which issues could be framed. It does not mandate that before framing of the charges, answers to interrogatories must be delivered. As per Order 14 Rule 3 (b) answers 6lpa-260-09 to interrogatories may be considered in framing issues. Charges can be framed on the basis of material which includes pleadings of the parties. Pleadings of the parties are available with the Charity Commissioner and the Charity Commissioner will be free to frame charges on the basis of material in the shape of pleadings before it. However, even after framing of the charges, if any party feels that the charges were framed on no material they will have remedy to challenge the said order. With these observations the appeal is disposed of. In view of disposal of the appeal, civil application does not survive, the same is also disposed of. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI,J) Sd/- (A.R.JOSHI,J)