1 SA 94.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 94 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. R.N.Dhorde,Advocates for the appellants. Mr.V.D.Salunke, Advocate for Resp. No. 6. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 17/03/2011 PER COURT : 1. The present appellant assail the Judgment and Order passed by the District Judge-1, Omerga, thereby allowing the Misc. Civil Application filed by the present respondents. 2. The present respondents had filed Change report before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, which came to be accepted on 24/6/2002. The present appellants preferred Revision before the Jt. Charity Commissioner on 29/7/2005. The same was allowed by the Jt. Charity Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the present respondents preferred Misc. Civil Application before the District Court. The District Court 2 SA 94.2011 allowed the same. The present appellant have assailed the said Judgment. 3. Mr. R.N.Dhorde, the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that the Jt. Charity Commissioner had observed that the Assistant Charity Commissioner was acting in quasi judicial capacity and ought to have followed the provisions of law. The Jt. Charity Commissioner further observed that the Assistant Charity Commissioner without verifying the signatures, had hurriedly sanctioned the change report. According to the learned counsel, the Jt. Charity Commissioner had hurriedly remanded the matter for fresh consideration, by which even the present respondents could not have been aggrieved. According to the learned counsel, the District Court has taken hyper technical approach by observing that the Revision was not filed within limitation or within the reasonable time. It is only when it came to the knowledge of the appellant that they could file the said Revision. According to the learned counsel, just because subsequent elections have taken place, the merits of the Change report still are required to be gone into. And can not be termed as mere academic. 4. Per contra, Mr. V.D.Salunke, the learned 3 SA 94.2011 counsel submits that the District Court has rightly considered the factum of reasonable time. Even if no limitation is prescribed to file Revision under Section 70 – A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, still the said powers are to be exercised within reasonable time. The appellants had filed Revision after lapse of three ( 3 ) years and one ( 1 ) month, which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be reasonable. The learned counsel further contends that the appellants have also not tendered any explanation for not filing review for such a long time nor have stated that they have no knowledge of the acceptance of the Change report. The learned counsel further contends that in any case, the subsequent elections were held in the year 2007 and the said body would complete its tenure. As such, the Change report is academic. 5. It is a trite law that when the statute does not prescribe the period of limitation, then the said remedy has to be availed within reasonable time. 6. From the perusal of Section 70-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, it is manifest that said provision does not prescribe the period of limitation. The only restriction is that the same may not be exercised during the appeal period. As the said provision does not prescribe the bar of 4 SA 94.2011 limitation, then in such circumstances the said remedy has to be availed within reasonable time. Lapse of three ( 3 ) years and one ( 1 ) month can not be said to be reasonable time. More over, the appellants have not given any explanation for filing Revision after such a long slumber. In absence of any explanation, it can not be held that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause for not filing Revision earlier. More over, even the fresh elections had taken place in the year 2007, the tenure is of five ( 5 ) years and in near future the tenure would also come to an end. In that light of the matter, I do not find that the District Court has committed any error while passing the order. I have not dilated on the aspect of the locus of the appellants. In the result, the Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. 7. Mr. R.N.Dhorde, the learned counsel for the appellant at this stage submits that the decision in the present proceedings would not come in the way in respect of subsequent change reports. 8. The Change report has to be decided on the basis of the factum and legal position as arising while dealing with the Change report and the same would be on a fresh material. 5 SA 94.2011 9. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and is dismissed. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/SA 94.2011