MANEKLAL ANANDJI Vs. POPATLAL B SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard all the learned Counsel appearing for their parties in the above multiple proceedings at length, even on the merits of the appeal. The above civil applications are filed by the three different groups of the individuals who were not parties in the original proceedings before the City Civil Court. The aforesaid applicants in the civil applications have made a common prayer that they should be allowed to intervene in the present appeal in this Court and that the appellants be directed to join the applicants as the party respondents. As far as the part of the common prayer (a) in all the aforesaid civil applications is concerned I am inclined to allow them to intervene in the present appeal as all the applicants have claimed that they are active members of the community and the trust and that they are vitally interested in the activities of the trust and they are vitally affected by the orders passed by the Charity Commissioner and the City Civil Court, which are the subject matter of this appeal. In view of the controversy created around the trust it would be in the larger interest of the community to hear the applicants, who might represent different opinions in the community. Besides, having heard all the parties in this matter including the applicants at length on the merits of the appeal it will not be proper to not to allow the applicants to intervene in the present appeal. I therefore, pass the following order in respect of the common prayer Clause (a) in the above civil applications :

(2.) THE applicants have also prayed for stay of the impugned order dated 20-12-2000 passed by the City Civil Court in Charity Application No. 4 of 2000 and also different prayers made by the applicants in each of the above civil applications, I am not inclined to grant any of such prayers at the instance of the applicants who are not the appellants in the appeal but who are only intervenors and who have only prayed for impleading themselves as party respondents in the above appeal. The applicants in Civil Application Nos. 1537 of 2001 and 2369 of 2001 have gone to the extent of seeking final relief of setting aside of the impugned order in the appeal. I fail to understand how as the intervenors and even as the respondents to be impleaded henceforth the impugned orders can be quashed and set aside or even stayed by any interim orders. If the Managing Committee members who are aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the City Civil Court they ought to have challenged the said order by filing a substantive appeal against the said order. They cannot be given any relief in this appeal in which they are not the appellants who are aggrieved by the said order and who have filed the present appeal. The intervenors and the party respondents cannot be given any such reliefs which the appellants alone are entitled to claim. I therefore, refuse to grant any other reliefs in the aforesaid civil applications subject to the following order which would be common in the above civil applications.

(3.) IT is further significant to note that the appellants themselves were not granted any interim orders of the stay of the impugned order by this Court by my learned Brother D. G. Deshpande, J. , who had heard the appeal and had admitted the same by passing the following order on 20-3-2001.