Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 658 (BOM)

Baburao Sitaramji Patil v. Shriram Asaram Bansod

2011-06-14

R.M.SAVANT

body2011
JUDGMENT :- 1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of lndia takes exception to the order dated 08/02/2011 passed by the incharge Deputy Charity Commissioner by which, application (Exh.13) filed by the petitioners came to be rejected. The petitioners herein are the respondents in the application filed by the petitioners under Section 41-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 for seeking directions for the proper administration of the affairs of the Society known as 'Shri Vivekanand Seva Sangh, Lehgaon', Tq.Morshi. The said application was numbered as 219 of 2010. To the said application, the petitioners initially filed their reply on 31/1/2011. Thereafter, on 8/2/2011, the petitioners filed two applications. The said applications were numbered as Exh.13 and 14. In so far as Exh.14 is concerned, the same was filed on record for seeking permission to file certain documents on record, whereas application Exh.13, as mentioned herein above, was filed for seeking permission to file additional reply. In so far as application (Exh.14) was concerned, the incharge Deputy Charity Commissioner has allowed the same by order dated 8/2/2011. However, in so far as application Exh.13 is concerned, the authority has rejected the same primarily on the ground that there is no averement in the application as to why the additional say is necessary. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that application (Exh.13) was sought to be filed so as to complete the pleadings, and in support of the documents, which have been allowed to be filed by the authority by virtue of the order passed on Exh.14. Hence, it was necessary that the said application (Exh.13) was also to be allowed. 5. Per contra. it is submitted by Mr. Y.M. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondents herein that the applicants in the said application Exh.13 have not cited the reasons why the additional reply was necessary and therefore the same came to be rejected. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the additional reply was not even placed before the Deputy Charity Commissioner. Y.M. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondents herein that the applicants in the said application Exh.13 have not cited the reasons why the additional reply was necessary and therefore the same came to be rejected. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the additional reply was not even placed before the Deputy Charity Commissioner. Upon this, the learned counsel Shri. A. S. Chandurkar for the respondents submitted that the additional reply, which was sought to be filed was filed in the court along with application Exh.13, has also served on the respondents. 6. In so far as the pleadings are concerned, it is well settled that a hypertechnical view should not be taken and a view which furthers the cause of justice should be adopted. Since the petitioners herein seek to file the additional say to complete the pleadings, in my view, it was necessary to allow the said application Exh.13, more so, in view of the fact that application (Exh. 14) for production of document is already allowed. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 8/2/2011 passed on Exh. 13 is set aside. The petitioners would be entitled to file their additional reply which was filed along with Exh.13. It would be open for the respondents herein to file their say to the said additional reply within fifteen days from date. The concerned authority i.e. the Deputy Charity Commissioner to hear and decide the said application being No.219 of 2010 within a period of three months from date. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms. The parties to bear their respective costs. Parties to appear before the Deputy Charity Commissioner on 4/7/2011 at 3.00 p.m. Ordered accordingly.