Judgment :- Heard finally with consent of the parties. Appellant is challenging the order passed by the District Judge II, Akola in M.J.C. No.144/2005 dated 19.6.2007. The impugned order reads thus: “ORDER The M.J.C. is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.” It may be stated that the said M.J.C. was filed by the appellants herein to bring their names on record, for setting aside the abatement and restoring the M.J.C. No.68/2001, which was dismissed on 10.1.2005. 2] The appellants are the legal representatives of deceased Shamrao Govindrao Mohokar who was working as trustee of one Shri Sidhaji Maharaj Sansthan, Patur bearing registration PTR No.A-266. According to applicants deceased Shamrao Mohokar was the sole trustee of the said trust and the mode of succession was heridatory in nature. It may be stated that in respect of that trust one Pandurang Sakharam Satav had filed an application under section 50(A)(1) of the Bombay Public Trust Act for framing a scheme before the Assistant Charity Commissioner Akola, which was registered as Application No.7/1996. Same came to be decided on 14.3.2001. It further appears that the trustees were appointed for better administration of the trust. That order was challenged before the District Judge, Akola vide application No.68/2001 by deceased Shyamrao. As he remained absent matter proceeded in his absence and later came to be abated on 10.1.2005 and hence the M.J.C. No.144/2005 was filed under order 22 rule 10 of C.P.C. for setting aside order dated 10.1.2005 and for restoration of M.J.C.68/2001. 3] Respondents moved an application before the trial court to bring L.Rs.of Shamrao Mohokar. The learned District Judge found that father of the applicants could not be treated as trustee of the said Sidhaji Maharaj Sansthan. He ordered appeal to have been abated by order dated 10.1.2005. The application for setting aside abatement was filed after 10 months. 4] Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the learned District Judge should have condoned the delay and should have decided the matter on merits, though there was delay of about 10 months, in view of judgment reported in 1993 Mh.L.J. 588 Abaji Daulata Yadav & others ..vs.. Dhondiram Jagdevrao Yadao. 5] As against this, learned counsel for the respondents contended that learned trial Judge has rightly rejected the application of the appellant. He also relied on Abaji’s case reported in 1993 Mh.L.J. 588 [cited supra]. Dhondiram Jagdevrao Yadao. 5] As against this, learned counsel for the respondents contended that learned trial Judge has rightly rejected the application of the appellant. He also relied on Abaji’s case reported in 1993 Mh.L.J. 588 [cited supra]. According to him, ignorance of law can not be an excuse and therefore, the application for bringing L.Rs. of the deceased Shamrao was rightly rejected by the learned District Judge. It was contended that deceased was removed from the trust, as the trust was being mismanaged. Therefore,the body of trust was appointed under section 50(A)(1) of the Bombay Public Trust Act in an enquiry no.7/1996. According to them therefore on merits the applicants have no case. 6] Learned A.G.P. also supported the impugned order, for the reasons mentioned therein. 7] The only question that arises for consideration is whether learned District Judge should have allowed to application for condonation of delay to the applicants consequently setting aside the abatement and considered the matter on merits. 8] Admittedly in this case the order of abatement of the proceedings was passed on 10.1.2005. The M.J.C. was filed on 7.11.2005 i.e. after about 10 months. It was for bringing L.Rs. of the deceased Shamrao Mohokar on record. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that due to misconception of law, application for condonation was not filed. 9] In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the learned counsel, it may be seen that the learned District Judge was aware of the facts and merits of the case. No doubt the merits could not been considered in the detail, but fact remains that, by speaking order in Enquiry Application No.7/96 it was specifically found that the respondents therein i.e. deceased Shamrao had no authority in law, to be in the trust. It has been observed that several chances were given to the non applicant deceased, but he did not avail the same, and he did not submit his written statement and nor did he adduce any evidence. The non applicant filed an application for permission to adduce the oral evidence, however, it was rejected and the fit trustees were appointed. It has been observed that several chances were given to the non applicant deceased, but he did not avail the same, and he did not submit his written statement and nor did he adduce any evidence. The non applicant filed an application for permission to adduce the oral evidence, however, it was rejected and the fit trustees were appointed. 10] Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out the ground No. (c) in his M.J.C. which reads thus: “c) It is submitted that, it is the trust registered under B.P.T. Act and the mode of succession is heridatory one and the rights of the L.Rs. are of assignment and created through Trust and their interest is maintained and due to abetment, the rights involved will be hampered, hence, the provisions of order 22 Rule 10 of C.P.C. are applicable.” 11] It clearly appears that the question involved was whether the appointment of trustees as fit persons, was proper. This aspect was not considered and same was necessary to be considered. In my opinion therefore, the learned District Judge should have allowed the applicants to file an application for setting aside abatement. 12] Therefore, in my view, the impugned order needs to be set aside. Appellant needs to be allowed to file application for condonation of delay before learned District Judge-2 Akola for filing application for setting aside of the abatement. The proceedings can be considered on merits. I may add that this is not to mean that the application for condonation of delay should be allowed. Same shall be considered on its own merits. In result, the appeal is allowed. 13] Impugned order passed by District Judge II, Akola in M.J.C. No.144/2005 dated 19.6.2007 is hereby set aside. Appellants are allowed to file application for condonation of delay before the District Judge Akola in preferring application for setting aside abatement i.e. M.J.C. 144/2005. The same shall be considered its own on merits, after hearing the parties. 14] It is made clear that none of the observations shall influence the learned District Judge while considering anything on merits.