JUDGMENT:- This is a petition by a Public Trust. 2. Rule has been issued, and the petition was waiting for final hearing. 3. The petitioner claims that it runs Educational Institution such as High School at Sihora, Tah. Tumsar, District Bhandara. 4. An enquiry under section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, was initiated by the respondent No.3, represented by one Shri Salve its Secretary. 5. Subject matter of said enquiry can be grasped from contents of para 2 of the writ petition, which reads as follows: "2. That, one Shri Salve instituted proceeding for Change Report under section 22 of the Act in respect of the immovable property viz. Survey No. 691, admeasuring 1 Hr. 70 Rs situated at Mouza Sihora, Tahsil Tumsar, District Bhandara, which was purchased by the petitioner and the building was constructed on the said plot of land in which the petitioner is running the High School known as 'Maharashtra High School, Sihora". (Quoted From page 2 of Writ Petition Paper Book) 6. According to the petitioner, during pendency of the proceedings, the Reporting Trustee Shri Salve died, and this fact was not brought on record by anybody. 7. By an application dated 10-2-1995, respondent No. 2 applied as interested person under section 73-A of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 purportedly to pursue the said enquiry. 8. The application by respondent No.2 has been opposed by filing the say, however, according to the petitioner, reasonable opportunity to defend the application was not afforded to it because the petitioner's lawyer who had come from Anuavati could not attend the Office of respondent NO.2 on that day. 9. The respondent No. I then passed the order allowing the said application, which is challenged in this petition. 10. By amending, the petitioner has inducted the new points in para No. 4-A, which are extracted and quoted as below: (1) As stated above the Original sole applicant (Change Reporter) Shri Salve died and the proceedings abated and as such, there was no question of joining any other person to the proceeding. With the death of the sole applicant Shri Salve proceedings under section 22 of the Act came to an end. (2) Besides this it is submitted that only trustee of the Public Trust is entitled in law to file the Change Report under section 22 of the Act. With the death of the sole applicant Shri Salve proceedings under section 22 of the Act came to an end. (2) Besides this it is submitted that only trustee of the Public Trust is entitled in law to file the Change Report under section 22 of the Act. The respondent No. 4 do not claim to be the Trustee of respondent NO.3 Public Trust therefore, there is no question of his joining to the proceedings for Change Report. (3) In any proceedings under this Act, any person having interest in the public trust may be joined as a party to such proceedings on an application made by such person on such terms and conditions as the Officer holding the inquiry may order. (4) Thus, it is clear that any person having interest in the Public trust may apply for joining the proceedings under the Act. But for this purpose the proceeding must be in existence and pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. 11. In support of this petition, learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following Judgments: I) 2005(2) Mh.L.J. 299, Anna s/o Shriram vs. Jt. Charity Commr., 2) Notes of Cases, 1978 Mh.L.J. 13, Vithal Shivramji vs. Pitruji, 3) 1997(2) Mh.L.J. 407 , Amar Vijay Merchant vs. Pushpakumar, 4) 1980 Mh.L.J. 372, Jagatnarayansingh vs. Swarupsingh Edu. Society, 5) 2001(4) MhLJ. 822, Balaji Bhikaji vs. Punjajibalaji. 12. The petitioner is arguing as if Sumantrao Onkarrao Bonde is pursuing the application as interested person. In fact, in para 2 of the application (Exh.68 Annexure-I), he has specifically averred as follows: "(2) That, at the time of institution of that application one Mr. Salve was the Secretary of applicant society but at present Mr. Salve is dead, therefore, the applicant society cannot be represented through him. But at present applicant Mr. S.O. Bonde is Secretary of Shri Shivaji Education Society, Amravati and who is entitled to represent it. In the circumstances it is just, proper and necessary to substitute the name of this applicant in the place of Mr. Salve, otherwise the proceeding will suffer from infirmity. (Quoted from page 10 of Writ Petition Paper Book) 13. These averments are denied in a bare and bald denial without even an affidavit in support. 14. In the circumstances it is just, proper and necessary to substitute the name of this applicant in the place of Mr. Salve, otherwise the proceeding will suffer from infirmity. (Quoted from page 10 of Writ Petition Paper Book) 13. These averments are denied in a bare and bald denial without even an affidavit in support. 14. This Court, therefore, does not hesitate in recording that not only that the objection to application for intervention under section 73-A was vexatious, but filing this petition too is vexatious. The application filed by the respondent No. 4 was rather mis-described. He should have rather simply applied for amendment in the cause title of the application, and this could have conveniently helped the enquiry under section 22 of the Act. 15. The respondent does not seem to be duly advised, lest the application could never have been filed titling under section 73-A of B.P.T. Act, and in contrast, the present petitioner who is equipped with best available legal talent, has become successful in dragging the respondents in this Court, and keeping the enquiry pending for over 13 years. 16. Reliance on the proposition that Order 22 applies, and therefore, the enquiry under section 22 pending before the respondent No. I should have been dismissed, is wholly untenable. 17. This Court has to un-hesitantly record that the petition is pursued, and vigorously fought on the belief that the proceedings under section 22 filed by the Trustee of the respondent No.3 would abate, alleging further that the respondent No. 4 does not have interest in the application under section 22 filed by the respondent No.3. This submission is too far stretched. 18. On what is shown by the petitioner, the dispute, which was pending under section 22 of the Act, was for recording the property Survey No. 691, and not for recording Office of Trusteeship. On what is shown in the petition, the actionable interest (right to sue as understood in Civil Procedure Code and specified in Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code) very well survives as claimant is Trust and not an individual. What was prayed is that the property be recorded in Schedule-I in the name of the respondent No.3, and such a dispute can never abate. The submission to the contrary is on the very face of it untenable. 19. Neither of the Judgments relied upon by the petitioner helped the petitioner. What was prayed is that the property be recorded in Schedule-I in the name of the respondent No.3, and such a dispute can never abate. The submission to the contrary is on the very face of it untenable. 19. Neither of the Judgments relied upon by the petitioner helped the petitioner. 20. The petition does not merit interference and Rule is discharged with costs. 21. Respondent No.2 shall decide the enquiry as expeditiously as possible. Order accordingly.