JUDGMENT - ASHOK AGARWAL, J.:---Whether proceedings under section 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act abate on the death of a party is a short question that arises for determination in these appeals. 2. Two proceedings were instituted before the Charity Commissioner. One at the instance of trustees and other at the instance of certain interested parties for registration of certain properties as being the properties belonging to Shri Bhulingeshwar Devalaya Trust. The proceeding instituted at the instance of the trustees was numbered Enquiry Case No. 2201 of 1973 the one instituted by the interested persons was Enquiry Case No. 1140 of 1973. The present appellant and his mother Gulabbai Dattaram Pathare filed their objections contending that the properties in question were of their ownership and not of the Trust. On the 6th of October, 1979, the mother of the appellant died. On the 12th June, 1980 this fact was brought to the notice both the trustees and to the interested parties at whose instance the inquiries had been initiated. No steps were taken for impleading the other heirs of Gulabbai. On the 5th April, 1986 the appellant filed Application (Exhibit 43) in Enquiry Case No. 2201 of 1973 and Application (Exhibit 83) in Enquiry Case No. 1140 of 1973 for abatement of the proceedings on the ground that no application for bringing the other heirs of Gulabbai had been filed. By a common order dated 13th April, 1987 the Deputy Charity Commissioner was pleased to reject the two applications. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred Application Nos. 16 and 17 of 1987 before the Bombay City Civil Court and by the impugned judgment dated 17th March, 1988 his Honour the Additional Principal Judge Shri G.V. Kalikar as he then was pleased to dismiss with costs the said applications. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 3. Shri Gangal, the learned Counsel appearing in support of the Appeals contended that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to proceedings under section 19 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. Since the heirs of the deceased Gulabbai had not been brought on record, the Enquiry cases abated in view of the provisions of Order 22, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since the heirs of the deceased Gulabbai had not been brought on record, the Enquiry cases abated in view of the provisions of Order 22, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Reliance was placed on Rule 7 of the Bombay Public Trust Rules which provides that enquiries under section 19 and the other provisions of the Act shall be held as far as possible under the provisions of the Small Cause Courts Act. Since the present proceedings relate to properties situate in Greater Bombay region, the proceedings would be governed by the procedure prescribed under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. 4. Further reliance was placed on section 43 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act which provides that in all suits, appeals and proceedings the Small Cause Courts shall as far as possible follow the procedure prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. Reliance was also placed on section 76 of the Bombay Public Trust Act which provides that save in so far as may be inconsistent with anything contained in that Act the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under that Act. According to Shri Gangal, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to proceedings under the Bombay Public Trust Act. Since the other heirs of the deceased Gulabbai had not been impleaded, the proceedings before the Charity Commissioner stood abated. 5. In my judgment, there is no merit in the above contention. Section 76 of the Bombay Public Trust Act on which reliance is placed provides:--- "76. Save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under this Act." (Emphasis provided). It is apparent that the provision relates to all proceedings before the Court. Section 2(4) defines Court in the following terms: "2(4) "Court" means in the Greater Bombay, the City Civil Court and elsewhere, the District Court." Hence, the provisions of section 76 cannot be applied to the proceedings before the Charity Commissioner. 6. It is apparent that the provision relates to all proceedings before the Court. Section 2(4) defines Court in the following terms: "2(4) "Court" means in the Greater Bombay, the City Civil Court and elsewhere, the District Court." Hence, the provisions of section 76 cannot be applied to the proceedings before the Charity Commissioner. 6. Rule 7 of the Public Trust Rules provides that the inquiries under section 19 and the other provisions mentioned in Rule 7 are required to be held as far as possible in Greater Bombay region in accordance with the procedure prescribed for the trial of suits under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act and elsewhere under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Section 43 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act on which reliance is placed deals with the procedure in respect of Suits, Appeals and proceedings under the Chapter in which section 43 appears viz. Chapter VII. Chapter VII deals with recovery of possession of certain immoveable property and certain licence fees and rent. The procedure provided by section 43 govern proceedings only under Chapter VII and not proceedings under the other provisions of the Act. Chapter V provides for procedure in suits. Under this Chapter there is no provisions akin to the one contained in section 43 making the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable. Section 23 which was originally found in Chapter V dealt with the application of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. That section has been deleted. In Chapter V wherever certain specific provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable, the same has been specifically provided for. Since the provisions of Order 22, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code are not made applicable in Chapter V which deals with procedure in Suits, it would not be possible to hold that the same apply to proceedings before the Charity Commissioner. 7. If one has regard to the provisions of section 19 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, it would be clear that the inquiry contemplated therein can be initiated on an application by a trustee as provided in section 18 or upon an application made by any person having interest in the public trust or even by the Charity Commissioner on his own motion. The inquiry contemplated under section 19, in my view, is of public interest and the same cannot be thwarted on such technical pleas as abatement. If an inquiry is initiated either at the instance of the trustees or at the instance of persons interested, the inquiry cannot come to an end of the death of such persons. It will be incumbent upon the Charity Commissioner to continue these proceedings as if these were proceedings which were initiated on his own motion. Hence, I am inclined to answer the issue raised for my determination by holding that the provisions of Order 22, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to proceedings before the Charity Commissioner under section 19 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. 8. Even if it were to be held that the provisions of Order 22, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies even then the present proceedings cannot be said to have abated. The proceedings which were initiated by the trustees and interested parties were opposed by the appellant and his deceased mother Gulabbai. It is undisputed that the appellant is one of the heirs of his mother and he was already on record. In such a case the right of sue survives and there can be no abatement especially when the estate of the deceased is adequately represented. 9. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the present Appeals are devoid of any merit and the same are dismissed with costs. Since the proceedings before the Charity Commissioner are pending since the year 1973, the same are expedited. Appeals dismissed. -----