1 W.P.No.9636/11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9636 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.C.V.Korhalkar, advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 20.12.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The present Respondents have filed a suit for specific performance of contract and also claimed alternate reliefs. The present petitioners filed an application for rejection of plaint on the ground that the sale is without the permission of the Charity Commissioner as is required U/s 36-A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. So also subsequently the permission to sell the property has been refused by the Joint Charity Commissioner and no decree can be passed on the basis of such an agreement. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 3. Mr.Korhalkar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court has failed to take into consideration the fact that the 2 W.P.No.9636/11 agreement is void abinitio. When the permission is already refused by the Joint Charity Commissioner, the Court can not pass a decree for specific performance. In view of that the plaint ought to have been rejected. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the pleadings and the impugned order. The plaintiffs along with the relief for specific performance has also claimed the relief as is permissible U/s 22 of the Specific Relief Act. At this stage, I would not dilate on the merits of the said relief claimed as it would be too premature. Suffice it to state that the grounds raised by the petitioners herein would be required to be dealt by the Court vis-a- vis the prayers made in the plaint. Whether the plaintiff would be entitled for the relief of specific performance or whether he would be entitled for the alternate reliefs would be decided by the Court after the trial and at the time of final adjudication. 5. In view of the above, no error is committed by the Court while rejecting the application. As such the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.20.12.2011. asp/office/wp9636.11 3 W.P.No.9636/11