FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.2101 OF 2009 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Heard Shri Suryawanshi, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri Nandode, learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 6. Though this is styled as first appeal, in substance, the appeal has to raise substantial question of law as contained in section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgment and order, I am satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. All the authorities below have concurrently held against the appellant and recorded findings that the meetings of the trust dated 14th April, 1995 and 30th April, 1995 were not properly conducted as also on the ground that the change report filed under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 was beyond the prescribed period that’s to say, it was filed after 1 year 7 months and 27 days. In view of this, without calling for record and proceedings of the case, as per Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, I am satisfied that the appeal does not raise any question of law much less any substantial question of law. 2 In the result, appeal fails and it is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.G. KETKAR, J.) 04.12.2009. PLK/*