JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. Heard both the parties at length. 2. The present appeals are filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by District Judge No.1, Yavatmal in M.J.C. No.20/1999 and MJC No.21/1999 decided on 04/12/2008 dismissing the M.J.C. as abated arising out of judgment passed in Revision No.22/1997 decided on 30/01/1999 by Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur arising out of order dtd. 12/07/1978 passed by Assistant Charity Commissioner, Yavatmal in Appeal No.59/1997 under Sec. 70 passed by Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur arising out of common order passed by Assistant Charity Commissioner, Yavatmal in Inquiry Case No.143/1994 and 773/1994 decided on 26/08/1997. 3. This Court framed substantial question of law on 13/03/2009 which is as follows: < WXY>"Whether the appellant could have been permitted to come on record to represent the interest of other group in Public Trust?"</ WXY> 4. Being two second appeals filed challenging common order, Second Appeal No.471/2008 is taken as lead appeal. The present appeal is filed that Vidya Prasarak Mandal which was established by grandfather of appellant and on the donation amount of Amolakchand Mahavidyalaya, Yavatmal was started by a Trust. The Trust is originally registered as society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and therefore by deeming fiction under Sec. 2, Sub-sec. 13 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, it came to be registered by a Trust. The father of appellant was admittedly member of the Managing Committee, who admitted late Jawaharlalji Darda as one of the Trustee. It is alleged by the father of appellant that in order to grab the management of the Trust late Jawaharlalji Darda, manipulated records of the Trust by showing resolution dtd. 19/04/1971 whereby 10 persons were admitted as members. It is further contention that the said proceedings book merely bears signature of late Jawaharlalji Darda alone and no other Trustees have signed the same. By keeping father of the appellant Satyanarayan Bhoot in dark, elections were taken by showing several elections by writing different proceeding books and got the change report allowed vide order dtd. 12/07/1978. Without informing to all members, the meeting was conducted and late Jawaharlal Darda wad declared as elected. There was permission granted by the Charity Commissioner under Sec. 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act to sale the Trust property, however, sanction was granted for a period of six months only vide order dtd. 22/01/1971. 12/07/1978. Without informing to all members, the meeting was conducted and late Jawaharlal Darda wad declared as elected. There was permission granted by the Charity Commissioner under Sec. 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act to sale the Trust property, however, sanction was granted for a period of six months only vide order dtd. 22/01/1971. Inspite of this specific order, the sale-deed came to be executed on 14/10/1971. The amount is also not deposited as per the direction of the Court. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 tried to create interest in the said Trust property. The petitioner filed an application before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal which was registered as Trust Appeal No.02/1995. He also filed an application for addition of parties under Sec. 71-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act. During the pendency of that application, the respondents have passed one resolution and proposed to purchase the land involved in dispute by paying Rs.26,89,108.00. 5. In view of said resolution dtd. 22/03/1986, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the proposed plaint claiming relief of injunction directing the respondents not to purchase the said land since the title of the said land did not pass to the respondent No.3. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissed that appeal therefore, Writ Petition No.1435/1998 came to be filed wherein this Court passed the order of status-quo protecting the above property of Trust from being sold for repayment of loan. When father of the appellant Satyanarayan Bhoot came to know about order passed on various change reports, he filed Revision Application bearing Revision No.22/1997 against the order dtd. 12/07/1978 and also filed Appeal No.59/1997 against common order passed in Inquiry Case No.143/1994 and 773/1994 decided by Assistant Charity Commissioner vide order dtd. 26/08/1997. There were two change reports vide Case No.143/1994 which was filed in respect of death of Trustee and Case No.773/1994 in respect of the elections held in General Body Meeting dtd. 07/03/1994. 6. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant that appellant was member of the Trust and her father was also member of the Trust. As such, she applied to substitute herself in place of her deceased father in her substantive capacity. Both the change reports were rejected holding that members cannot get status as legal members and permission was granted to defacto Trustee to hold the election by admitting members. As such, she applied to substitute herself in place of her deceased father in her substantive capacity. Both the change reports were rejected holding that members cannot get status as legal members and permission was granted to defacto Trustee to hold the election by admitting members. It was challenged to the extent that as defacto trustees were directed to hold election by filing revision before the Joint Charity Commissioner and Joint Charity Commissioner dismissed the Revision. The original applicant- father of present appellant challenged the said order vide application M.J.C. No.20/1999 and M.J.C. no.21/1999 before District Judge, Yavatmal. However, during the pendency of the said application, father of the appellantSatyanarayan Bhoot expired on 14/09/2006. It is submitted by learned Counsel for appellant that in pending Writ Petition No.1435/1998, she has filed application for bringing her name which came to be allowed by this Court as interest of the Trust is paramount consideration in said matter. The appellant herein filed an application dtd. 04/04/2007 for condonation of delay and for setting aside the abatement and for bringing her name on record vide Exhibits 69 and 70 respectively. During the pendency of the said application, she has also moved an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for bringing her name on record in her substantive capacity. 7. The learned District Judge by common order on these applications i.e. Exhibit 60, 61 and 71 in M.J.C. No.21/1999 and Exhibit 69,70 and 81 in M.J.C. No.21/1999 dismissed the applications vide order dtd. 04/12/2008. 8. I have heard both the parties at length. It appears that by common order, the District Judge rejected the application of the appellant to bring her name on record. Vidya Prasarak Mandal is a Society registered under the Society Registration Act as well as registered trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act. It has constituted as well as provides for holding of election for the post of members of the management committee. Such elections are to be held after every three years. Alleged elections were held on 07/03/1994 and change reports to that effect bearing No.143/1994 and 773/1994 came to be filed. The said change reports came to be rejected and reporting trustee therefore filed Appeal No.64/1997 whereas founder trustee filed Appeal No.69/2007. The Joint Charity Commissioner rejected both the appeals and directed the defecto trustee to hold the election. Alleged elections were held on 07/03/1994 and change reports to that effect bearing No.143/1994 and 773/1994 came to be filed. The said change reports came to be rejected and reporting trustee therefore filed Appeal No.64/1997 whereas founder trustee filed Appeal No.69/2007. The Joint Charity Commissioner rejected both the appeals and directed the defecto trustee to hold the election. The applicant deceased Satyanarayan Bhoot challenged the said directions by which the persons not entitled to hold the elections were allowed to hold election vide M.J.C. No.20/1999 under Sec. 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. He has also filed M.J.C. No.21/1999 thus, he is not only challenging the election held on 07/03/1994 but the direction conferring the powers to those persons to hold elections who were not entitled for the same. Satyanarayan Bhoot died on 14/09/2006 thereafter his daughter filed applications at Exh.60, 61 and 71 and Exh. 69, 70 and 81. In both the pending applications seeking permission to pursue the cause initiated by her deceased father who was founder trustee of the said trust. Learned Trial Court mainly rejected the applications on the ground that District Court is entertaining the applications under Sec. 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act is not officer holding enquiry under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act and Sec. 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act confers appellate jurisdiction on the District Court. There is application under Order 22, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, therefore, question of abatement does not arise. Substantial question of law which was framed on limited issue i.e. whether the appellant could have been permitted to come on record to represent the interest of other group in Public Trust? 9. The learned Counsel for appellant pointed out that the applicant before the District judge was member of the Trust and being so interested person she can very well represent the other group in the previous cause which was taken up by her father. Without going to the merits of the matter it would be appropriate to decide the question whether the appellant could have been brought on record in place of deceased Satyanarayan Bhoot. There is no error on the part of District judge so far as rejection of applications i.e. Exhibits 60, 61 and 69, 70 is concerned. Without going to the merits of the matter it would be appropriate to decide the question whether the appellant could have been brought on record in place of deceased Satyanarayan Bhoot. There is no error on the part of District judge so far as rejection of applications i.e. Exhibits 60, 61 and 69, 70 is concerned. Those are applications filed under Order 22, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of permission to bring legal heirs of appellant. In fact in the trust matter, there is no concept of bringing legal heirs of deceased trustee. However, in the present matter, there were another applications under Order 1, Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure i.e. Exhibits 71 and 81. 10. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Khapre for the appellant vehemently submitted that in view of Sec. 73-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act the interested person has a right to join as a party to the proceedings on his application as the officer holding enquiry may order. Record shows that the appellant herein was member of the trust on being so she is a person having interest in a trust in view of definition under Sec. 2 (10) of the Bombay Public Trust Act. The application is continuation of proceedings under Sec. 22 and the District Judge has implead any party on its application to the proceeding under the Act. 10. The learned Counsel for appellant relied on Krishnakant Dattaram Pathare Vs. Deputy Charity Commissioner, Greater Bombay Region, Bombay and others, reported in AIR 1991 Bombay 145 wherein this Court held that < WXY>"The inquiry contemplated under S.19 of the 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 on 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. The provisions of O.22, R.4 of the Civil P.C. do not apply to proceedings before the Charity Commissioner under S.19."</ WXY> 11. The learned Counsel for applicant also relied on Sitabai Ramchandra Jaltare and others Vs. It will be incumbent upon the charity Commissioner to continue these proceedings as if these were proceedings which were initiated on his own motion. The provisions of O.22, R.4 of the Civil P.C. do not apply to proceedings before the Charity Commissioner under S.19."</ WXY> 11. The learned Counsel for applicant also relied on Sitabai Ramchandra Jaltare and others Vs. Masjid Nurun Mohalla Jingerwadi, reported in AIR 1979 Bombay 109, wherein it is held that suit filed by a Mutwalli of a Mosque in his capacity as a trustee on his death, suit can be continued by another trustee and not by his own legal representatives. Such a case will not be covered by Order 22 Rule 3 which contemplates the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff being brought on record. Since the new trustee would not be legal representatives of the deceased trustee, in that sense there is no question of the new trustee applying for being brought on record under the provisions of Order 22 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. Such case would be covered by Rule 10 of Order 22. The application for bringing new trustee on record can be made at any time during pendency of suit. Unlike Rules 3 and 4 of Order 22, no limitation is prescribed for presentation of an application under Order 22 Rule 10, and no penalty is laid down for failure to substitute the person on whom the interest of the deceased plaintiff or defendant has devolved and hence the right to make an application under the latter Rule is a right which accrues from day to day and can be made at any time during the pendency of a suit and there is no abatement under that Rule. 12. Learned Counsel also relied on Saiyad Mohammad Bakar El-Edroos (dead) by Lrs Vs. Abdulhabib Hasan Arab and others, reported in AIR 1998 SC 1624 , in support of his contention that concept of abatement does not apply on death or withdrawal of one of the two persons, Charity Commissioner is empower to check and control the irregularities, malpractices and misconduct in the functionings of any Public Trust. As such, he can allow any interested person to join the proceedings. 13. The learned Counsel also relied on Balaji Bhikaji Kapale and another Vs. As such, he can allow any interested person to join the proceedings. 13. The learned Counsel also relied on Balaji Bhikaji Kapale and another Vs. Punjaji Balaji Tayade and others, reported in 2001 (4) Mh.L.J. 821 , wherein it is held that by virtue of Sec. 17 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, as incorporated in Rule 7 of the Bombay Public Trusts Rules, provisions of Civil Procedure Code apply to the enquiry under Sec. 22 of the Bombay Public Trust Act which is in the nature of judicial enquiry. 14. Learned Counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the application that Sec. 73-A will apply only when matter is pending and not otherwise. However, the appellant in her individual capacity as a member/interested person in a trust can apply to bring her name as appellant and continue the proceedings pending before the authority i.e. District Judge. 15. The Additional District Judge, Yavatmal by common order disposed of Exhibits 60, 61 and 71 in M.J.C. No.21/1999 and Exhibits 69, 70 and 81 in M.J.C. No.20/1999. Exhibit 60 was filed on 04/04/2007 for condonation of delay in setting aside abatement. Exhibit 61 is filed for setting aside abatement and to bring legal representatives of deceased applicant on record. Exhibit 71 is filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code for permission to join the proceeding as applicant to prosecute the proceedings against the non-applicant. It came to be filed on 02/12/2008. It appears that the matter was pending till then. Similarly Exhibits 69, 70 in M.J.C. No.20/1999 have filed for setting aside the abatement and bringing legal representatives and Exhibit 81 in M.J.C. No.20/1999 is filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Additional District Judge held that Mrs. Kiran Agrawal is not trustee of the trust. Moreover, the office of trustee does not attract the Rule of inheritance. So also, the provisions under Sec. 73 of the Bombay Public Trust Act makes it clear that, so far as (a) proof of facts by evidence (b) summoning and enforcing attendance of any person and examining him on oath, (c) compelling the production of documents, issuing of commissions, is concerned, the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are applicable. So also, the provisions under Sec. 73 of the Bombay Public Trust Act makes it clear that, so far as (a) proof of facts by evidence (b) summoning and enforcing attendance of any person and examining him on oath, (c) compelling the production of documents, issuing of commissions, is concerned, the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are applicable. In other words, it can be safely averred that the application under Order 1, Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code are not contemplated by Sec. 73 of Bombay Public Trust Act. 16. The learned District Judge further observed that as District Court entertaining the application under Sec. 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act is not officer holding inquiry under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act. In view thereof, Sec. 73-A would not apply as it would apply when officer holding inquiry under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act to join any interested person to the proceedings. For sake of convenience, Sec. 73-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act is reproduced below: "Sec. 73A -Power of Inquiry Officer to join persons as party to proceedings- 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." Under Sec. 72, the District Judge entertains application against the decision of Charity Commissioner i.e. the decisions under Sec. 70. Sec. 70 provides appeals from finding of Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner to the Charity Commissioner including the finding under Sec. 22 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. Thus, where decision in change report under Sec. 22 is under challenge by way of appeal before Charity Commissioner/Joint Charity Commissioner and the decision of Charity Commissioner is under challenge in application under Sec. 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. It has to be treated as continuation of proceedings. As such, it is misconception of the learned Additional District Judge that the power under Sec. 73-A of Bombay Public Trust Act are only vested when officer holding inquiry under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act. Being continuous proceedings, the District Judge is also has equal power to join any interested person as a party to the proceedings before him. 17. Being continuous proceedings, the District Judge is also has equal power to join any interested person as a party to the proceedings before him. 17. Moreover, Order 1, Rule 10 provides the powers when Court may strike out or add parties. The latter part of Order 1, Rule 10 (2) reads as under: < WXY>"(2) Court may strike out or add parties.- the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added." Similarly, the purpose of adding Sec. 73-A itself is that no inquiry should be foreclosed on the death of person interested applying in inquiry if any other person having interest applies for joining him as a party to such proceedings. The inquiry officer may order adding such person as a party. Natural consequence is that, the superior authority is having all the powers which are having to the subordinate authority. As proceedings under Sec. 72 is continuation of inquiry under Sec. 22, in my considered opinion, Sec. 73-A applicable and empowers District Court to add party if such is required for effective judgment. Moreover, Order 1 Rule 10 (2) also empowers the Court to add to such person to the proceedings either upon or without the application of either party and on all such terms and conditions which may Court deems just to add these persons before the Court in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.</ WXY> 18. The learned Counsel for appellant filed certified copies of change report on record bearing No.773/1994 showing name of applicant Dr. Kiran Agrawal whose name sought to be deleted as outgoing trustee. It is also contended that she was one of the objector to this change report. Thus there is no doubt that applicant is the interested person and ex trustee also. Kiran Agrawal whose name sought to be deleted as outgoing trustee. It is also contended that she was one of the objector to this change report. Thus there is no doubt that applicant is the interested person and ex trustee also. Therefore, her application for substituting her name as applicant is well founded. In view of death of said applicant, being interested person she has every right to be considered for joining her as a party to the proceedings. In my view, the order passed by learned District Judge is patently erroneous and misconceived and liable to be set aside. Though, the order passed in respect of Exhibits 60, 61 and 69, 70 are rightly rejected. However, order in respect of Exhibits 71 and 82 are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in the affirmative. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: < WXY>ORDER i) The appeal No.471/2008 and Appeal No.473/2008 are partly allowed.ii) The common order to the extent rejecting Exhibit 71 in M.J.C. No.21/1999 and Exhibit 81 in M.J.C. No.20/1999 dtd. 04/12/2008 are hereby set aside. iii) The learned Additional District Judge is directed to consider Exhibit 71 in M.J.C. No.21/1999 and Exhibit 81 in M.J.C. No.20/1999 afresh in view of the observations made in the body of the judgment. iv) Parties to appear before the learned Additional District Judge on 06/03/2023. v) Record and proceeding be sent back if received, immediately to the learned Additional District Judge. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.</ WXY>