( 1 ) sa175.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 175 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4956 OF 2011 Kazi Abdul Samad s/o. Abdul Haquim .. Appellant Versus Gulam Dastagir Daud Ansari & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate respondent No.1. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 15.06.2011 P.C. :- 1. Heard. This Second Appeal is in-fact fourth proceedings in respect of Change Report filed by the respondents. It is admitted position that after the expiry of tenure of old managing committee in 2007 a meeting was held. Appellant - Kazi Abdul Samad was present in the meeting. It is also admitted fact that he was duly elected in that meeting. Few days thereafter the newly elected managing committee held meeting and selected two members to be co-opted members of the managing committee. Thereafter, the respondents filed a change report and the same was allowed without issuing notices to the respondents/outgoing members of the managing committee. The learned Assistant ( 2 ) sa175.11 Charity Commissioner did not think it necessary to issue them notices only because they had already submitted their no objection in writing to the change. Few months thereafter, rather belatedly, the appellant filed revision. The same was entertained on merit and it was allowed mainly on the ground that the appellant was not served with the notice of meeting in which the election took place and in which he got elected. The second objection was also upheld that the meeting of the managing committee in which two additional members were taken on co-opt basis was illegal. So, the Revisional Court allowed the revision and set aside the change report. The learned District Judge, thereafter, held that the appellant cannot challenge legality of the meeting in which he was not only present but was also elected. He further held that since he was present in the meeting, there was no question of giving him notice. Notice to him of such meeting was presumed etc. However, the learned District Judge did not disturb other finding that method by which the additional two members were co-opted was illegal. To that extent the change report was rejected. 2. Mr. Gunale tried to submit that there is substantial question of law arising in this Second Appeal. He said - whether the change report can be partly allowed and partly rejected? In my view the change report is partly allowed and elected members of the managing committee would be able to hold another meeting for co-option. No prejudice would be caused to the appellant, if such liberty is made ( 3 ) sa175.11 available to the elected members of the managing committee. The election took place in 2009. Substantial period of tenure is already over and so I am not inclined to admit the appeal. The appeal stands dismissed. 3. In view of dismissal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application No. 4956 OF 2011 does not survive and stands disposed of. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] snk/2011/JUN11/sa175.11