KANAIYALAL GURU VITHALDASJI Vs. HARICHANDRADAS GURU KANAIYALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 26.12.2011, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amreli, below the application Exh.01, in Civil Misc. Application No.38 of 2011, whereby, the said application for restoration of Trust Application No.03 of 2002, has been allowed.

(2.) THE brief background of the case, relevant for the decision of the petition is that, the petitioner is the "Guru" (Spiritual Mentor) of respondent No.1, who is his "Shishya" (Disciple). The petitioner and respondent No.1 had both filed Trust Application No.03 of 2002, under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1972 ('the Act' for short), challenging an order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner under Section 70 of the Act, in Appeal No.08 of 2002. The aforesaid Trust Application came to be dismissed for non- prosecution by an order dated 07.07.2011, of the learned Additional District Judge, Amreli, as neither the applicants nor their learned advocate remained present to lead evidence, though sufficient opportunities had been granted to them. It was observed in the said order that the parties and their learned advocate were not present when the matter was called out and neither has an adjournment application been submitted, which goes to show that they are not interested in proceeding with the matter. Under the circumstances, the Trust Application came to be dismissed. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed an application dated 21.08.2011, at Exh.01, for restoration of the Trust Application, under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 106, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ('the Code' for short). The petitioner was not named in the cause- title of the said application. However, the application came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 26.12.2011, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amreli. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.

(3.) THIS Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the averments made in the petition, as well as the documents annexed thereto.