1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 193 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 756 OF 2006 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate instructed by Mr. D.J.Choudhari, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.D.Hon, Advocate for respondent. ............................. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 19/10/2010 PER COURT : 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks review of the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 21/07/2008 in Second Appeal No. 756 of 2006. 2. Second Appeal No. 756 of 2006 was filed by the present non applicant against the order passed by the 4th Adhoc District Judge, Jalna allowing Review Petition No. 30 of 2006. 3. According to the present applicant/petitioner, the present non applicant has resigned as the President of the Trust on 31/12/1999. It was averred that the present applicant was elected as President on 15/01/2000 and accordingly the Change Report was filed. The Change Report was accepted on 21/2/2002. The 2 present non applicant filed Revision Petition No. 4 of 2004 before the Jt. Charity Commissioner challenging the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner dated 21/02/2002 accepting the Change Report. The Joint Charity Commissioner dismissed the Revision. Aggrieved by the same, the present non applicant filed an application under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act in the District Court, Jalna. The 4th Adhoc District Judge, Jalna allowed the said application and set aside the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner, thereby remitting the matter back to the Assistant Charity Commissioner for fresh enquiry. The present applicant thereafter filed Review Petition No. 30 of 2006 before the 4th Adhoc District Judge, Jalna. It reviewed its own order and allowed the Review Petition. Aggrieved thereby, the present non applicant had filed Second Appeal bearing No. 756 of 2006. The learned Single Judge of this Court vide its Judgment and Order dated 21/07/2008 allowed the said Second Appeal and remanded the matter back by restoring the order dated 2/2/2006 passed by the 4th Adhoc District Judge. The said order is sought to be reviewed by the present application. 4. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, the learned counsel instructed by Mr. V.J. Choudhari, the learned counsel for the applicant canvassed following proposition : (i) That after the present non applicant has 3 resigned and the present applicant was elected as President, subsequent elections have taken place and the present proceedings about the Change Report has become academic. The same would not serve any purpose. By referring to the order of the Apex Court dated 18/1/2007 passed in Special Leave Petition in the matter of Hidayat Khan V/s Vaijinath, which was in respect of another Change Report wherein it was observed that the suo mottu jurisdiction is the enabling provision, it can not be exercised only because it would be lawful to do so and the purpose and object for which the enquiry was directed to be held was no longer available. The subsequent events mainly holding elections in the year 2006 also deserves to be taken into consideration and as such no purpose would be served in remanding the matter for fresh enquiry. 5. Per contra, Mr. Hon, the learned counsel for the non applicant submitted that after the Second Appeal was allowed, the present applicant challenged the order in Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court, which was dismissed. The Review Petition was filed before the Apex Court. The same was also dismissed. After the orders were passed in the said Second Appeal, the present applicant had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Assistant Charity Commissioner and had taken part in the proceedings. The evidence of present non applicant is over and the matter is posted for evidence of the applicant. According to Mr. Hon, the question of forgery and fraud is also germain to 4 the present proceedings and as such the proceedings would not become academic. The learned counsel relied on the observations of this Court, in the said Second Appeal, more particularly, in para no. 10 of the said order. According to Mr. Hon, the present proceedings are just meant to prolong the matter and as such he prays for costs. He further submits that there is no error apparent on the face of record in the Judgment passed by this Court on 21/7/2008 in Second Appeal No. 756 of 2006. 6. I have Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and also gone through the Judgments passed by this Court and the other relevant orders and the documents. 7. The scope of review under Section 114 read with Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure is in a narrow compass. Just because different view can be possible, the review jurisdiction can not be invoked and exercised. In the Second Appeal No. 756 of 2006, the Court was required to consider the scope of review in as much as the District Court, whose order was subject matter of Second Appeal No. 756 of 2006 had reviewed his own order and whether the said review was permissible and the ingredients required to review the order were satisfied or not, was the subject matter of the controversy. This Court after evaluating all the aspects of the matter, had come to the conclusion that the District Court was not justified in 5 reviewing its own order. The matter does not become mere academic in view of the fact that the question of fraud and forgery was very much germain to the proceedings. This Court while delivering the said Judgment relied on another Judgment of this Court in the case of Marutirao Vishwanath Bagal and others V/s Dinkar Kashinath More and others reported in 2004 (4) – Mh. L.J. - 982 . The view taken by this Court while delivering the Judgment in Second Appeal No. 756 of 2006 is a plausible view, wherein this Court has held that just because subsequent elections have been held, the issue does not become academic as the issue involved is of fraud and forgery and the further consequences could also follow. In view of these facts, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. In light of the same, no case is made out for review of the order passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 756 of 2006. Hence, the present Review Application is dismissed. 8. Regarding the prayer of the non applicant to grant costs, I am not inclined on the ground that the applicant is prosecuting legal remedy which is provided by the law. As such, the present Review Application is dismissed however with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/RA 193.10 in SA 756.06