JAGATNARAYANSINGH SWARUPSINGH CHITHERE Vs. SWARUPSINGH EDUCATION SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by Jagatnarayansingh Swarupsingh and others directed against the judgment and order dated 21st September 1977 by the learned District Judge, Amravati in application preferred by the Swarupsingh Education Society, Pathrot by its President and Manager Smt. Meenabai Amarsingh Chithore, under section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act raises inter alia, a question of some importance to all public trusts viz. : In inquiry under section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act related only to the factum of change under consideration or also to is legality and validity ?

(2.) Facts and circumstances, briefly stated, are as follows :---

(3.) Mr. Chandurkar the learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the learned District Judge erred in reversing the finding and order of the Deputy Charity Commissioner on the question of limitation in filling the appeal. Going through the judgments of the Deputy Charity Commissioner and the learned District Judge respectively, I do feel that this certainly was not a case fro interference by the learned District Judge with the discretion well exercised by the Deputy Charity Commissioner who had in fact not only concluded that the appeal was filed within limitation but had also added that in case it was held to be beyond time, he would condone the delay in filing the same. Whether there is or is not a cause sufficient for condonation of delay, is best judged by the Court initially called upon to consider the same. Discretion exercised, particularly in favour of condonation, should normally not be interfered with unless well settled principles stand violated. Such indeed was not the case here. On the contrary, undisputed position herein was that neither intimation of the report nor its acceptance was sent to the appellants. If, in these circumstances, they contended on affidavit by least one of them that their appeal was filed within the period of limitation after knowledge of the change report and its acceptance or that, in the alternative, delay be opened and if, in the exercise of his own judicial discretion, the Deputy Charity Commissioner thought fit to accept the said contention, this surely was not a case for interference. Discretion was well and properly exercised. The ex parte order stood set aside and the matter want back for decision on merits after notice and opportunity to all concerned. Condonation thus advanced the ends of justice.