Tag: Ordinary Civil

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8514/2018 Prashanti CHS Ltd. … Petitioner V/s. District Dy. Registrar of Cooperative Society & Ors. … Respondents Mr. Zain Mookhi a/w. Ms. Palak Patel & Ms. Janhavi Doshi i/b. Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co. for the Petitioner CORAM: K.K. TATED & S. K. SHINDE, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 4, 2018 P.C. : 1 Heard. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner challenges the order dated 31.05.2016 passed by the learned District Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mumbai – 4, the competent authority u/s.5A of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the promotion of construction, sale, management and transfer) Act,1963 rejecting the Petitioner's Application for deemed conveyance. 2 Hence, office to verify and place the matter before appropriate Bench. (S. K. SHINDE, J.) ( K. K. TATED, J. ) Basavraj Gurappa Patil Digitally signed by Basavraj Gurappa Patil Date: 2018.10.06 13:23:16 +0530 Basavraj G. Patil 1/1

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8514 OF 2018 Prashanti CoOp. Hsg. Society Ltd. … Petitioner V/s. District Deputy Registrar of Coop. Society & Ors. … Respondents Mr. Zain Mookhi a/w Ms. Palak Patel and Ms. Janhavi Doshi for the Petitioner. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1 State. CORAM : V.L. ACHLIYA, J. DATE : 13th FEBRUARY, 2019. P.C. : Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 13.03.2019. Learned A.G.P. waives the notice for Respondent No.1. In addition the service through the process of Court, the Petitioner is granted liberty to serve the Respondents by all other modes of service as permissible in law. Parties are put to notice that Petition may be heard finally at the stage of admission. (V.L. ACHLIYA, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8514 OF 2018 Prashanti Cooperative Housing Society Limited .....Petitioner V/s. District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative .....Respondents Society and others Mr. Zain M. a/w Ms. Janhavi Doshi i/b Mansukhlal H. & Co. for the Petitioner Mr. Sandeep Maurya for Respondent no. 6 Mr. Rajesh A. Kanojia for Respondent nos. 2 to 5 CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE : MARCH 13, 2019. P.C. The learned counsel appearing for Respondents seek three weeks time so as to enable them to file reply. 2 Time is granted as prayed for. Stand over to 08/04/2019. Needless to observe that copy of the reply be served upon the learned counsel for the Petitioner in advance. [S. S. SHINDE, J.]

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8514 OF 2018 Prashanti Co-operative Housing Society Limited ….. Petitioner VERSUS District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Society & Ors. ….. Respondents Mr.Zain Mookhi, i/b. Mansukhlal Hiralal & Company for the Petitioner. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P. for the Respondent no.1. Ms.Krishna Borkate, i/b. Mr.R.A.Kanojia for the Respondent nos. 3 to 5. Mr.Sandeep Maurya for the Respondent no.6. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : th APRIL, 2019 8 P.C . Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 3 to 5 by way of last opportunity prays for time till 22nd April,2019 for filing reply. Time granted as prayed for as last opportunity. A copy of the reply shall be served in advance upon the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. List the writ petition on board on 26th April,2019. [S.S.SHINDE, J.]

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8514 OF 2018 Prashanti Co-operative Housing Society Limited ....Petitioner V/S District Deputy Registrar Of Cooperative Society ....Respondent And Ors CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J DATE : 26th April, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for 19.07.2019. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: 44-WP-8514-18.DOC Sayali Upasani IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.- 8514 OF 2018 Prashanti Co-Op Hsg. Soc. Ltd ...Petitioner Vs. District Deputy Registrar of Co-op Soc. And Others ...Respondents Ms. Sayali Puri i/b Mansukhlal Hiralal and Co., for Petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Maurya, for Respondent No. 6. Mr. Rajesh Parwani, for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Mr. S. H. Kankale, AGP for State. CORAM:- N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED:- 3rd JULY, 2023 PC:- Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. Parwani, the learned Counsel submits that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and undertakes to file Vakalatnama. It seems that the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have already filed an affidavit-in-reply. By way of final indulgence, three weeks time is granted to the Counsel to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and work out the matter. Stand over to 24th July, 2023. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8514 OF 2018 Prashanti Co-operative Housing Society Limited....PETITIONER V/S District Deputy Registrar Of Cooperative Society And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR J DATE : 24th July, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 07/08/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8514 OF 2018 Prashanti Co-operative Housing Society Limited....PETITIONER V/S District Deputy Registrar Of Cooperative Society And Ors ....RESPONDENT Mr. Akash Rebello a/w Ms. Sayali Puri and Mr. Mohammed Lokhandwala i/b Mansukhlal Hiralal and Co for Petitioner Mr. Piyush Raheja i/b Rajesh Parwani for Respondent No. 2 to 5 Mr. C. D. Mali AGP for State for Respondent No. 1 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE J DATE : 4th September, 2023 P.C. : S. O. to 25/09/2023 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 24: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8514 OF 2018 Prashanti Co-operative Housing Society Limited ...Petitioner Versus District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Society and Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Akash Rebello a/w Ms. Purvi Asheri, Ms. Sayali Puri, Mr. Mohammed Lokhandwala i/by Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co. for Petitioner. … … Mr. Piyush Raheja i/by Mr. Rajesh Parwani, for Respondent Nos.2 to 5. Mr. Sandeep Maurya, for Respondent No.6. Mr. P. P. Pujari, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 25 2023. P.C.: Petitioner-Society has filed this Petition challenging order dated 31 May 2016 passed by District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai City (4) and Competent Authority rejecting the application filed by Petitioner-Society for grant of unilateral deemed conveyance. I have heard Mr. Rebello, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner, Mr. Raheja, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, Mr. Maurya, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.6 and Mr. Pujari, the learned A.G.P. appearing for Respondent No.1. Perusal of the impugned order dated 31 May 2016 would indicate that the main reason why the Competent Authority had rejected the application for deemed conveyance is the alleged amalgamation of plot of Petitioner-Society with the neighbouring plot of Nirmal's Nest Cooperative Housing Society. ("Nirmal's Nest"). Another ground for rejection is nonimpleadment of Nirmal's Nest Society. I find both the grounds of rejection to be totally untenable. Firstly, there is no concrete evidence of two plots being amalgamated. Reliance is placed on a communication issued by the Municipal Corporation on 19 October 2007 for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion that there is amalgamation of plots bearing C.T.S. No.2403 of Plot Eksar and C.T.S. No.436 of Village Borivali. The relevant portion of the communication reads thus: " Your plans submitted of the layout/amalgamation of above plot along with your letter dated 20.10.2006 are approvable as they are as per Development Control Rules, subject to the terms and conditions already registered under No.BDR2-06908-2007 dated 16.10.2007. These terms and conditions of the layout shall be binding not only on the Owners for the time being but also on their heirs executors, administrators, assignees and every person deriving title through or under them. Final approval to the amalgamation/layout will be given after you construct the roads including lighting, drainage, sewerage, etc and recreation amenity spaces is developed by leveling and adequate number of trees are provided on the same. You will please make it clear to your client that in case of breach of any of the terms and conditions, the deposit amount is liable to be forfeited and the permission granted liable to be revoked." The communication of Municipal Corporation dated 19 October 2007 would indicate that the Municipal Corporation had merely stated that the proposal of amalgamation was "approvable". The communication does not approve the amalgamation nor effects such amalgamation. Furthermore, the amalgamation of plots will have to be done by Revenue Authorities and not by Municipal Corporation. Municipal Corporation, being a Planning Authority, may consider whether joint development could be carried out on two neighbouring plots. Actual amalgamation of two C.T.S. numbers will have to be ultimately approved by the revenue authorities. Furthermore even if such amalgamation was to take effect on the basis of communication dated 19 October 2007, the same would have no effect on right of Petitioner-Society to seek deemed conveyance in respect of plot bearing C.T.S No.436, Village Borivali. It is submitted that a common developer appointed by Petitioner and Nirmal's Nest Society, who had decided to construct building on both plots and had moved a proposal before MCGM for sanctioning plans on amalgamated plots. That the said developer had already been removed and at present there is no proposal for effecting joint development on two plots. Be that as it may. The amalgamation has not actually been effected and even if it was to be effected, the same would not defeat the right of the Petitioner-Society to seek deemed conveyance. The ground of non impleadment of Nirmal's Nest Society for rejection of unilateral deemed conveyance by the competent authority is also unfounded. The Petitioner-Society is claiming deemed conveyance of land on which its building is standing. For considering that application, why presence of neighbouring society is necessary is difficult to fathom. I am therefore of the view that the presence of Nirmal's Nest Society is not necessary while deciding application for grant of unilateral deemed conveyance in favour of Petitioner-Society. I therefore find that the impugned order dated 31 May 2016 passed by the competent authority to be indefensible. The competent authority is required to ignore the aspect of amalgamation and reconsider the application filed by Petitioner-society for grant of deemed conveyance. Accordingly, order dated 31 May 2016 is set aside and the proceedings are remanded to the competent authority for a fresh decision. All contention of parties, except on issues of amalgamation and joinder of Nirmal Nest Society, are let open. The Writ Petition is accordingly partly allowed. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CAUSE TITLES AND APPEARANCES AS NOTIFIED ...... CORAM : N.M. Jamdar, J. 15 July 2016. P.C. :- On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on daily board dated 15 July 2016, stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS as under :- For condonation of delay A/N Matter at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 64 05.08.2016 65 25.08.2016 For Orders (Restoration) Matter at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 66 to 71 72 to 74 75 to 80 81 to 84 25.08.2016 26.08.2016 29.08.2016 30.08.2016 For restoration (admitted) Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 85 to 86 30.08.2016 87 to 89 31.08.2016 For Orders (Early Hearing Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 90 & 91 31.08.2016 92 to 94 01.09.2016 For Orders Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 98 01.09.2016 99 05.08.2016 100,101 01.09.2016 102 22.03.2017 103 01.09.2016 104 & 105 05.08.2016 106 to 109 02.09.2016 110 06.09.2016 A.O. for Admission Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 111 19.09.2016 M.C.A. fresh Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 112 18.10.2016 112 10.10.2010 M.C.A. Admission After Notice Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date For Admission Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date For Admission Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date For Admission fresh Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 117 to 122 23.03.2017 123 to 127 24.03.2017 For Admission After Notice Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 128 to 131 02.08.2016 132 to 135 03.08.2016 If in any of the above matters, ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If ad-interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (N.M. Jamdar, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1033 OF 2016 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 806 OF 2011 Sandeep Manohar Chavan ....Applicant V/s. 1. Smt. Suvarna Sudhakar Pawaskar and Ors. ....Respondents Mr. Devendra Pawar i/by. R.D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant. None for the Respondents. Coram :- N.M. Jamdar, J. Date :- 21 April 2017. P.C. :- The Second Appeal was dismissed in view of the order passed on 13th October, 2015 directing the Applicant to pay costs of Rs.5,000/-. Till date, the costs are not paid and restoration of the Second Appeal is sought. The restoration, will have to be on the payment of additional costs. Accordingly, the Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to the Applicant paying costs of Rs.10,000/- within a period of 4 weeks from today failing which the Appeal to stand dismissed for non-prosecution without reference to the Court. (N.M. Jamdar, J)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6517 OF 2017 Bholanath R. Shukla ...Petitioner vs. The Transport Engineer (Projects) ...Respondent Mr. Ajinkya Patil a/w. Mr. Dharmapal Dave i/b. Naik Patil Salvi & Associates, for the Petitioner. Mr. B.B. Sharma, for RespondentCIDCO. CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M. S. SONAK, JJ. DATE : JUNE 19, 2017 P.C.: . The learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the Petition with liberty to file a fresh Petition if occasion so arises. With the aforesaid liberty, the Writ Petition is disposed of as withdrawn. (M. S. SONAK, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.13748 OF 2018 Vijesh K. Khimasia & Ors. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents --- Mr.P.J. Thorat i/by Mr.S.P.Thorat for the petitioner. Mr.S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for the respondent no.1-State. Mr.P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate and Ms.Manorama Mohanty i/by M/s.S.K. Srivastav & Co. for the respondent nos.2 and 3. CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. DATE : 2nd May 2018 P.C.: . Papers are allowed to be produced at 3.00 p.m. Mr.Thorat, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks liberty to withdraw this petition with liberty to file appropriate proceedings after election of managing body of the respondent no.2 is held on 6th May 2018. Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed. No order as to costs. R.D. DHANUKA, J.

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 95 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6112 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders None present. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI REGISTRAR (JUDLI) Date : 21 APRIL 2017 As per order passed by Registrar (JudicialI) on 19.01.2017, W.P. stands dismissed without further reference to the Court. Hence, this Civil Application filed for bringing legal heirs of deceased Petitioner, become infractous as does not survive. REGISTRAR (JUDLI) RJ I gpj / 21.04.2017

Order - Status 9: Vidya Amin FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 95 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6112 OF 2016 Eknath Yeshwant Bondre (Decd) through LRs Mrs. Sharvari S. Mirashi & Ors. … Applicants Versus Madhav Prakash Joglekar & Ors. … Respondents Mr. S.C. Wakankar, Advocate for the applicants. CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE: 2 nd August, 2018. P.C.: This Application is moved for bringing legal heirs of deceased applicant/petitioner no. 1-Ekanth Yeshwant Bondre. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that petitioner-Eknath Bondre died on 17th October, 2016 and Civil Application was filed on 11th January, 2017, i.e., within 90 days, hence the legal heirs of petitioner no. 1 are to be brought on record. In view of this submissions, the legal heirs of deceased petitioner no. 1 is brought on record. Civil Application is allowed. Amendment to be carried out till 7th August, 2018. The amended copy of the petition is to be served on the other side. In Writ Petition, issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 18th September, 2018. Additionally private service allowed. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3702 OF 2019 Maha. Police Co-op. Housing Federation Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus Saraf Choudhari Nagar Co-op. Hsg. Soc. (No.2) Ltd. and Ors. .. Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30032 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30028 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30031 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30036 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30030 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30029 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30034 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30033 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30035 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3702 OF 2019 Saraf Choudhari Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. .. Applicant In the matter between: Maharashtra Police Co-operative Housing Federation Limited .. Petitioner Versus Saraf Choudhari Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. .. Respondents .................... Mr. V.S.Kapse i/by Mr. N.S.Rajeshirke for Petitioner Mr. Mandar Limaye i/by Mr. S.S.Aradhye for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Mr. S. H. Kankal, AGP for State Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 Mr. Vivek Walavalkar i/by Mr. Abhijeet Gosavi for Intervenor ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : DECEMBER 12, 2022. P.C. : Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. As informed to the Court, 10 out of the 14 Societies are ready for redevelopment. There are certain issues which are required to be looked into. The 4 reluctant Societies are now represented by Mr. Limaye and Mr. Aradhye (learned Advocates for Respondent Nos.1 to 4) before the Court. This Court had directed both Advocates to use their good officers to see if the said Societies bury their differences and participate in the redevelopment. Admittedly, the redevelopment is at the behest of Federation. One of the grievance mentioned by Mr. Limaye is effective representation of the 4 reluctant Societies in the Federation. Mr. Walawalkar and Mr. Kapse both inform the Court that in so far as effective representation is concerned and disclosure of any other issues to the said Societies are concerned, they are open to the same. In view of the above, this Court makes it clear that unless and until the 4 reluctant Societies point out perversity in the actions of the Petitioner, this Court will be reluctant to cancel the registration. This observation is however prima facie, and subject to hearing the objectors. At the joint request of all learned Advocates for respective parties, stand over to 16th December, 2022. In the meanwhile, adinterim relief, if any, granted earlier to continue. For the above reasons the 9 Interim Applications of the Societies for impleadment are allowed. Interim Application Nos. I.A.No. 30032 of 2022, I.A.No. 30028 of 2022, I.A.No.30031 of 2022, I.A.No. 30036 of 2022, I.A.No. 30030 of 2022, I.A.No. 30029 of 2022, I.A.No. 30034 of 2022, I.A.No. 30033 of 2022 and I.A.No. 30035 of 2022 are disposed of in terms of prayer clause (a) which is identical in all Applications and reads thus: "(a) Allow the Applicant to intervene in the present matter and be further pleased to direct the Petitioner to join the Applicant as a party respondent to the present writ petition," Necessary amendment to be carried out by tomorrow. Re-verification is dispensed with. Copy of the amended cause title shall be provided to the Respondents before the next date. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] SONALI SATISH KILAJE Digitally signed by SONALI 14:37:27 +0530

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.450 OF 2014 Smt. Bhagirathi Haribhau Yadav & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Vishnu Kate & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. R.B. Raghuvanshi i/b. Miss Rutuja Ambekar for the Applicants. Mr. S.G. Kudle for Respondent No.10. CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 08, 2014. P.C. : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the rival parities. 2 For the present, the controversy is only about Survey No.119/2/B. I quote paragraph 42 from the judgment of the lower appellate Court which reads thus : " From this purpose entries in 7/12 extract of land survey no.119 at Exh.265 for the year 194344 is also material to consider. This entry shows that land was acquired by military and Mahadu and Vishnu had taken the land for cultivation from military. Anyhow one thing is clear that land gat no.119 was acquired by the government and Mahadu and heirs of Vishnu had received that compensation as per their respective shares. If this is the position then it has to be said that tenancy rights of the family came to an end and land gat no.119 became the property of the government." 3 The observation made in paragraph 41 and paragraph 42 shows that the land had vested in the Government in its military department. The finding is based on the basis of mutation entries but there it is not clear as contended by Mr. Kudale nor it is substantiated by the documentary evidence that the Government had released the land after it had vested in it. The parties are at liberty to place the documents of release, if any, on record, since Second Appeal No.450 of 2014 is admitted for final hearing. However, looking at the finding in paragraph 42 as above, it appears prima facie that neither the appellant nor the respondent would be able to claim any right to go ahead with the construction on the said land or as the case may be without hearing the concerned Government. Hence I make the following order : ORDER i) The appellant to join the concerned Government as a party to the present Civil Application as well as Second Appeal and effect service before the next date. ii) Issue notice to the newly added party in both Second Appeal as well as Civil Application, returnable after vacation for hearing on this application. iii) Till the decision of the application finally the earlier order granting statusquo shall continue in operation. iv) S.O. for 6 weeks. (A. B. CHAUDHARI, J.) waghmare.

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION No.1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.450 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr.Ratnesh Dube i/b Ms.Rutuja Ambekar for the applicants Mr.S.G.Kudle for the respondent No.10. CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATED : 26/11/2014 PC : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 Liberty granted to the respondents to file their additional AffidavitinReply and serve copy on the other side. 3 Liberty granted to the applicants to file reply to the said affidavit, if they so desire and serve copy on the other side on or before the next date. 4 Stand over for two weeks. 5 Interim protection, if any, granted earlier to continue till next date. (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 12: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 450 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. Ratnesh Dube i/b Rutuja Ambekar for the applicant. Mr. S.G. Kudle for respondent no.10. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATED : 15/12/2014. P.C.: . Not on board. At the request of Advocate for the respondent no.10, matter is taken on board for urgent orders. 2 Liberty granted to the applicant to serve unserved respondent by private notice either by registered post A.D. and/or by hand delivery and file Affidavit of Service to that effect. 3 Matter to appear on board on 23.12.2014. (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 14: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 450 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders r Jud ge's or ders Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. R.P. Mr. R.P. Raghuvanshi i/b R.A. Ambekar for the i/b R.A. Ambekar for the applicant. Mr. S.G. Kudle for the respondent no.10. Ms. Jyotsna Pandi & P.S. Gujar for Union of India. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATED : 23/12/2014. P.C.: . Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 The learned counsel for the appellant submits that Appellant no.1 Smt. Bhagirathi Haribhau Yadav expired yesterday i.e. 22.12.2014. Hence, he requires some time to take appropriate steps for bringing her legal heirs on record. 3 On his request, matter adjourned to 19.01.2015. 4 Interim protection, if any, granted earlier to continue till next date. (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 450 OF 2014 Smt. Bhagirathi Haribhau Yadav and Ors. Applicants : V/S : Dnyaneshwar Vishnu Kate and Ors. Respondents * * * * * Mr. R.B. Raghuvanshi a/w. Mr. Ratnesh Dube i/by. Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. S.G. Kudle, Advocate for respondent no.10. Mrs. Jyotsna Pandhi with Mr. P.S. Gujar, Advocate for respondents no.21 to 25. Mr. Rajan Pawar, AGP for respondents no.26 and 27. * * * * * * Coram :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 11th February, 2015. P.C. :- 1). Adjourned for reply of the Government to 25th February, 2015. Copy of the affidavit-in-reply shall be furnished in advance to the appellant and other respondents. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J)

Order - Status 23: Chittewan 1/5 C.A.1021-14 O.O. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.450 OF 2014 Smt. Bhagirathi Haribhau Yadav and ors. .. Applicants/ Appellants (Org.Plaintiffs) V/s Dnyaneshwar Vishnu Kate and Ors. .. Respondents. (Org.Defendants) AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 170 OF 2015 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.450 OF 2014 R.N. Yadav @ Dhariya .. Applicant (Org.Respondent No.10) In the matter between Smt. Bhagirathi Haribhau Yadav and ors. .. Applicants/ Appellants (Org.Plaintiffs) V/s Dnyaneshwar Vishnu Kate and Ors. .. Respondents. (Org.Defendants) Mr. R.B. Raghuvanshi a/w Ratnesh Dube i/b Ms Rutuja Ambekar, for Applicants. Mr. S.G. Kudle, for Respondent No.10. Mrs. Jyotsna Pandhi with Mr. P.S. Gujar, for Respondents No.21 to 25. Mr. Rajan Pawar, AGP for Respondents No.26 and 27. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 25th March, 2015 P.C. This is a common order on the above two Civil Applications. Civil Application No.1021 of 2014 is taken out by the appellants for interim injunction to restrain respondent No.1 from dealing with or developing one of the suit properties i.e. the land at Survey No.119/2B of Pimple Saudagar, pending the disposal of the Second Appeal. Civil Application No.170 of 2015 is taken out by respondent No.10 for clarification that the adinterim order dated 08th October, 2014 passed on the Civil Application of the appellants is no more in operation in view of the subsequent order dated 12th December, 2014. The other relief sought by respondent No.10 is to direct the appellants to file an undertaking in the form of bank guarantee to the effect that in the event respondent No.10 succeeds in the appeal, the appellants will compensate him for the losses suffered on account of delay in the decision in the Second Appeal. The Second Appeal arises out of the suit filed by the appellants for partition of the joint family properties. The appeal was admitted on 06th August, 2014 with observations that prima facie it appears that there was no reason for the Appellate Court to exclude properties at Survey No.119/2B and 18/7 from partition and separate possession. These two properties are claimed to have been purchased by respondent No.10 from respondent No.1 by the sale deed dated 09th June, 1983. The Lower Appellate Court has recorded a finding that the properties had been owned jointly by Vishnu, Laxman and Mahadev. Respondent No.1 is the son of Vishnu. In view of this factual position, the Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law : Whether the appellate Court was right in excluding Survey No.119/2B and 18/7 from the partition and separate possession ? Whether learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.10 waives service of the notice ? It appears that during pendency of the proceedings, some portion of the properties came to be acquired by Government of India. Therefore, by order dated 08th December, 2014, the appellants were directed to amend the Civil Application to implead the concerned parties. Accordingly, amendment was carried out and seven persons were impleaded to the Civil Application. They are (1) Union of India, (2) Director General, Defence Estate, (3) Principal Director, Defence Estate, (4) Defence Estate officer, Southern Command, (5) Commanding Officer, Southern Command, (6) State of Maharashtra and (7) The Collector of Pune. The interim relief in operation during pendency of the suit was direction to respondent No.10 to maintain statusquo in respect of the properties at Survey No.119/2B and 18/7. This order has been continued with observation that if respondent No.10 is allowed to deal with the properties or carry out the construction, the same would lead to further complication which should be avoided. Mr. Kudgle, the learned advocate for respondent No.10 submits that the order dated 23rd December, 2014 passed this Court, is no longer in operation since the same has not been specifically continued. He also submits that respondent No.10, who had purchased the properties as far back as in the year 1983 is unable to enjoy the properties purchased by him. Considering the nature of the substantial questions of law framed, properties in question need to be preserved in the same condition during pendency of the Second Appeal. Hence, the Civil Application No.1021 of 2014 is allowed and Civil Application No.170 of 2015 is dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)

Order - Status 5: 938-wp-5679-2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5679 OF 2017 Mr.Shrirang Dadu Pawar & Ors. ..Petitioners V/s. Gramsevak & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Ameya Deshpande i/by Mr.V.B. Shivarkar for the Petitioners. Mr.Vishwajeet V. Mohite for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM : M.S. KARNIK, J. (VACATION COURT) DATE : 26th MAY 2017 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The statusquo order passed on 27th April 2017 by the Appellate Court is continued till 08th June 2017. List the matter on 08th June 2017. [M.S. KARNIK, J]

Order - Status 7: Trupti p506wp-5679-17.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5679 OF 2017 …... …... Mr.Shrirang Dadu Pawar & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Gramsevak, Gramopanchayat Jakhinwadi & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Vikas B.Shivarkar for the Petitioners. Mr.V.V.Mohite for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: JUNE 7, 2017 P.C. : Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board. The status-quo order passed on 27.04.2017 by the Appellate Court is continued till 27.06.2017. Stand over to 27.06.2017 (High on Board). (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 5679 OF 2017 Shrirang Dadu Pawar & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. Gramsevak & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Vikas B. Shivarkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vishwajeet V. Mohite, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE: 27th June, 2017. P.C.: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, this Petition is heard finally and decided at the stage of admission. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 27th April, 2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Karad dismissing Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 97 of 2016 thereby confirming the order dated 21st November, 2016 passed by 5th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Karad in Regular Civil Suit No. 410 of 2016. The plaintiffs/petitioners have filed Regular Civil Suit for perpetual injunction against respondent nos. 1 and 2, who are the members of Gram Panchayat of Village Jakhinwadi, Taluka Karad, District Satara and respondent no. 3/one private party that the respondents/original defendants shall not construct especially a wall and the road, which is available to the petitioners/plaintiffs, should not be closed and they should not disturb the petitioners from the use of the said road. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been enjoying the west side of the said road since last many years, however, the respondents collusively have decided to construct a compound wall for the kitchen of the auditorium which was constructed by Gram Panchayat. It is further argued that earlier a suit was filed between the respondents and other parties in the year 1961 and in the earlier suit, a settlement has taken place wherein the said land was shown as a road available for the public use and thus, the petitioners have every right to use the said land as access and which is going to be closed because of the construction. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the orders passed by the Courts below and has submitted that the petitioners have no right over the said property. The auditorium is constructed for the public purpose and public use, so the construction of the wall or any construction for that auditorium is not going to cause any hindrance or any disturbance to the access of the petitioners. He 2 / 3 further argued that other roads are available to the petitioners. Heard the submissions. Perused the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. The reasons given by both the Courts are detailed. It is specifically observed by the learned Judges that the petitioners have failed to establish the case that there was only way as access to their property. It is also observed that other than that there are other access to their respective properties. Under such circumstances, it appears that prima facie no case is made out. The view taken by both the Courts cannot be interfered with. I am not inclined to extend the status quo order passed on 27th April, 2017 by the Appellate Court. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioners orally prays for stay of operation of this order for four weeks. Considering the merits of the matter, I am not inclined to grant stay to this order. Order accordingly. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5870 OF 2018 Sunanda Suresh Bhandalkar Petitioner Vs. Deputy Charity Commissioner & Ors. Respondents --- Ms.Manjiri S. Parasnis for the petitioner. Mr.R.P. Kadam, AGP for the respondent no.1. CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. DATE : 31st October 2018 P.C.: . Issue notice upon the respondent nos.2 to 6, returnable on 10th December 2018. Learned counsel waives service for the respondent no.1. In addition to the Court notice, the petitioner is permitted to serve the respondent nos.2 to 6 by private notice through Registered A.D./Speed post/ Fax/Courier/hand delivery in advance and file affidavit of service before the returnable date. Humdust is permitted. There shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (c) and (d). The petitioner is directed to convey this order to the respondent nos.2 to 6. Parties as well as the District Judge to act on the authenticated copy of this order. R.D. DHANUKA, J.

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5870 OF 2018 Sunanda Suresh Bhandalkar ....Petitioner V/S Deputy Charity Commissioner And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : K.K. TATED, J DATE : 23rd January, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, S. O. to 28/02/2019. Interim protection, if any, granted earlier and in force as on today, to continue till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5870 OF 2018 Sunanda Suresh Bhandalkar ....Petitioner V/S Deputy Charity Commissioner And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : K.K. TATED, J DATE : 28th February, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, S. O. to 01/04/2019. Interim protection, if any, granted earlier and in force as on today, to continue till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5870 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12574 OF 2018 Sunanda Suresh Bhandalkar ...Petitioner vs. Deputy Charity Commissioner and ors. ...Respondents. Ms. Manjiri S. Parasnis for the Petitioner. Ms. M.S. Bane, AGP. For Respondent No.1. Mr. Pratap Patil for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ---- CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J. DATE : 16th DECEMBER, 2019 P.C. Both these petitions are between the same parties and involve connected questions and as such, they are being disposed off by this common order. Ramrajya Shikshan Sanstha is a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act ("Act" for short). On 5.4.2001 the lenared Deputy Charity Commissioner, Pune in C.R. No.700 of 2000 had directed the parties to apply for settlement of a scheme for the said trust and accordingly, an Application No.77 of 2002 was filed. The 1st respondent by an order dated 4.4.2005 framed a scheme for the said trust. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed Misc. Civil Application No.353 of 2005 purportedly under Seciton 72 of the Act challenging the said scheme. A similar application was filed by Sambhaji Ganpat Shirsat and others being Misc. Civil Application No.1039 of 2017. The learned District Judge, Pune by a common Judgment dated 28.6.2011 allowed both these applications and while setting aside the order dated 4.4.2005 remitted the matter back for fresh enquiry and decision under Section 50(A) of the Act to the 1st respondent. That was challenged by the trust along with Sambhaji Ganpat Shirsat in First Appeal No.1796 of 2011. Suresh Jagannath Bhandalkar also challenged the said order in a separate Appeal being First Appeal No.1797 of 2011 before this Court. This court by a common Judgment and Order dated 26.2.2014 allowed both these appeals placing reliance on the decision of this court in the case of Vasantrao Vishwanathrao Mane and others 2008(3) Mah.L.J. 242 and Gaffar Sattarkhan Pathan and others vs. Marutirao Tatyaba Sarpate and anr. 2012 (3) Mah.L.J. 211 holding that the District Judge acting under Section 72 of the Act had no power of remand. Consequently, M.C.A. No. 353/2005 and M.C.A.No.1039 of 2007 were restored to the file of the learned District Judge, for deciding the same within the confines of Section 72 of the Act. The said applications are pending before the learned District Judge at Pune. The applicants before the learned District Judge filed an application Exh.64 purportedly under Section 72(1)(A) of the Act, for production of additional evidence. It is contended that the main ground of challenge to the order dated 4.4.2005 is that a fraud has been played when the scheme was framed. In short, it was contended before the learned District Judge that except the first and last page of the scheme which was submitted before the first respondent, other pages were changed. By a result of which, an altogether different scheme, than what was proposed and envisaged came to be framed on 4.4.2005. In short, it was claimed that it is necessary to afford an opportunity to lead evidence to bring out the said alleged fraud. The application was opposed on behalf of the present petitioner on the ground that the same is not maintainable and no such claim for leading of additional evidence was made in the first round of litigation, prior to the order of remand. The first respondent by impugned order dated 6.1.2018 has allowed the application Exh.64 which order is subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.5870 of 2018. In pursuance of the said order, an affidavit in evidence of Mr. Dattatraya Bhosale came to be filed before the learned District Judge at Exh.95. The said witness was orally examined on 22.10.2018 and the cross examination of the said witness on behalf of the petitioner has been closed and by a separate order of even date the matter is fixed for final arguments. These orders are subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.12574 of 2018. I have heard Ms. Manjiri Parasnis, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. I have also heard Ms. Bane,AGP. for the 1st respondent. Perused record. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable, inasmuch as the applicant in M.C.A. No.353 of 2005 and 1039 of 2007 had never made any request for leading additional evidence in the first round i.e. prior to the order of remand dated 28.6.2011. It is submitted that, in any event, the respondents (applicants) in the aforesaid two applications cannot now enlarge scope of challenge and permission to lead evidence in two applications would enlarge the scope of challenge. The learned counsel strenuously urged that, the impugned order is in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon the District Judge particularly when order in First Appeal No.1796/2018 does not contemplate or envisage the leanred District Judge allowing any further/additional evidence. It is submitted that this court has restored the aforesaid two applications on the file of the lenared District Judge only on the ground that the learned District Judge had no power to remand, while entertaining a challenge under Section 72 of the Act. It is thus, submitted that the impugned order dated 6.1.2018 (below Exh.64) cannot be sustained. In so far as W.P. No.12574/2018 is concerned, it is submitted that if the order permitting additional evidence is set aside, there is no occasion for further evidence of Mr. Dattatraya Bhosale being led. In the alternative, it is submitted that if this court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 6.1.2018 (below Exh.64) which is subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.5870/2018 then permission be granted to the petitioner to cross examine Mr. Dattatraya Bhosale. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has supported the impugned order. It is submitted that, it has all along been the case made out by these respondents that there has been fraud played wherein except the first and last page, other pages of the scheme were changed, as a result of which the scheme different than the one which was envisaged came to be approved by order dated 4.4.2005 He submitted that there are wide powers conferred on the District Judge under Section 72 of the Act which includes power to allow additional evidence being led, particularly when District Judge has been held to have no power to remand the matter. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the decision of this court in the case of Vasantrao Vishwanathrao Mane (supra). Ms. Parasnis, the lenared counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of Vasantrao Vishwanathrao Mane (supra) is distinguishable on facts and is not applicable. I have considered the rival circumstances and the submissions made and I do not find that any case for interference is made out in the impugned order dated 6.1.2018, which is subject matter of challenge in W. P. No.5870/2018. It has all along been the case of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that there has been fraud played in the matter of framing of scheme on 4.4.2005 as except first and last page all other pages of the proposed scheme were changed. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to go into the question as to whether the case made out can be accepted or not, inasmuch as the said matter is still subjudise before the learned District Judge. Section 72 of the Act has since been deleted by Maharashgtra Act 55 of 2017 with effect from 10.10.2017. However, Section 33 of the Amending Act provides that nothing in the said amending Act shall affect applications and/or appeals pending before any civil court on the date of commencement of the said Amendment Act, 2017. There is no dispute about the said aspect. This is only mentioned to put the record straight. Section 72(1A) of the Act, as it stood prior to its deletion and which is relelvant for the purpose reads thus:- "(1A) No party to such application shall be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, before the Court, unless the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner or the Charity Commissioner has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted or the Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause the Court thinks if necessary to allow such additional evidence: Provided that whenever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by the Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission. (2) The court after taking evidence if any, may confirm, revoke or modify the deciion or remit the amount of the surcharge and make such orders as to costs as it thinks proper in the circumstances." It can thus be seen that the Deputy or the Assistant Charity Commissioner can in a given case admit evidence including the examination of any witness in the circumstances as set out in Section 72(1A) of the Act. This court in the case of Vasantrao Vishwanathrao Mane (supra) has held that the Deputy Charity Commissioner acting under Section 72 of the Act has specific powers only to confirm, revoke or modify the decision and there is no power of remand. It has been further held in this context that the specific power avaialble to the court under sub section (2) of Section 72 is inclusive of the power to take evidence if any. This court in Para 30 of the Judgemnt has held that, it is implicit that no special case is required to be made out as per the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure in order to adduce additional evidence. It has further been held that this specific inclusion of the power to take evidence, will show that the intention of the Legislature is to avoid remand. As noticed earlier, it has all along been the case of repsondent Nos. 2 to 4 that there has been fraud played when the scheme was framed by order dated 4.4.2005 by change of certain pages and in that view of the matter, the lenared District Judge has thought it fit to allow such additional evidence being led. The record disclosed that, in pursuance of the said order an affidavit in examination-in-chief of Mr. Dattatraya Bhosale is already filed. The impugned order in my considered view is not amenable to interference particularly, when it does not result into any manifest injustice on the petitioner. The contention that such a request was not made prior to the remand, to my mind cannot be accepted. Only because at that point of time request was not made, cannot preclude the first respondent to permit such evidence being led, if a case to that effect is made out, In that view of the matter, W.P.No.5870 of 2018 has to fail. This takes me to WP No.12574/2018 in which the challenge is to the closure of the cross examination on behalf of the petitioner of Mr. Dattatraya Bhosale. In my considered view for a fair trial and in the interest of justice opportunity to cross examine Mr. Dattatraya Bhosale needs to be granted. The possibility of petitioner having failed to cross examine the said witness as petitioner was contemplating challenge to the order dated 6.1.2018 cannot be ruled out, However, once that challnge has failed, I find that such an opportunity needs to be granted. Ms. Parasnis, the lenared counsel for the petitioner at this stage submitted that, taking advantage of the order dated 6.1.2018, the petitioner may lead evidence which may not be strictly relevant for deciding Civil Misc. Application No.353/2005. The apprehension in my considered view is misplaced as the learned District Judge has to ensure that the evidence being led is strictly relevant for deciding the issues arising in Misc. Civil Applciation NO.353/2005 and such additional evidence shall only be restricted to the grounds of challenge as raised in Misc. Civil Application No.353/2005. In the result, following order is passed. ORDER a) Writ Petition No.5870 of 2018 is hereby dismissed. The order dated 6.1.2018 (below Exh.64) permitting to lead additional evidence is hereby confirmed. Needless to mention that such evidence shall be confined to the grounds of challenge as raised in Misc. Civil Application No.353 of 2005. b) Writ Petition No.12574 of 2018 is allowed. The impugned orders dated 22.10.2018 (below Exh.95) and below Exh.109 are herebty set aside. c) The petitioner is permitted to cross examine the witness Dattatraya Bhosale (Exh.95). d) In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. e) At this stage Ms. Parasnis, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for extension of interim relief for a period of four weeks. On hearing the lenared counsel for the parties, it is directed that ad-interim relief granted on 31.10.2018 in terms of prayer clause (c) and (d) shall continue to operate for a period of four weeks from today. [C.V. BHADANG, J.]

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5870 OF 2018 ….. Sunanda Suresh Bhandalkar Petitioner vs. Deputy Charity Commissioner & Ors. Respondents Ms. M. S. Parasnis, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A. R. Metkari, AGP for Respondent No.1 / State. Mr. Pratap Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J. DATE : 13th JANUARY, 2020 P.C. . Not on board. Taken on board. This is mentioned for extension of the ad-interim relief which was continued for a period of four weeks on 16/12/2019. On hearing learned counsel for the parties, ad-interim relief shall continue to operate for period of three weeks as a last chance. No further extension shall be granted. Stand over to 3/2/2020. C.V. BHADANG, J.

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5870 OF 2018 ….. Sunanda Suresh Bhandalkar Petitioner vs. Deputy Charity Commissioner & Ors. Respondents Ms. Priya Shetty i/b. Ms. M. S. Parasnis, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A. R. Metkari, AGP for Respondent No.1 / State. Mr. Pratap Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J. DATE : 3rd FEBRUARY, 2020 P.C. . The petition is already disposed of on 16/12/2019. Hence, removed from board. C.V. BHADANG, J. Mamta Kale

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5870 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12574 OF 2018 Sunanda Suresh Bhandalkar ..Petitioner vs. Deputy Charity Commissioner & Ors. ..Respondents Ms. Priya Shetty i/b. Ms. M. S. Parasnis, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A. R. Metkari, AGP for Respondent No.1 / State. Mr. Pratap Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. ….. CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J. DATE : 3rd FEBRUARY, 2020 P.C. . The petition is already disposed of on 16/12/2019. Hence, removed from board. C.V. BHADANG, J.