NARAYAN TRIMBAK SURWASEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. THE MINISTRY OF LAW AND ORS.

                                                                               904-11911-2025-WP=.doc



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                            WRIT PETITION NO. 11911 OF 2025
        Digitally
        signed by
        UDAY
                     Narayan Trimbak Surwase                                  … Petitioner
UDAY    SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI JAGTAP                        Vs.
JAGTAP Date:
        2026.09.01
        12:23:57
        +0530        The State of Maharashtra Thr. The Ministry Of Law        … Respondents
                     And & Ors.
                                                     ………….
                     Mr. Mukul Kulkarni i/b Chaitanya Khade for the Petitioner.
                     Mr. Purshottam Chavan a/w Pravin Jadhav for Respondent Nos. 2 to 9.
                     Mr. Sanjay D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 10 and 11 – State
                                                     ………….
                                                       CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

                                                       DATE       : 29th AUGUST, 2026.
                     P. C. :

                     .         Heard both sides.

                     2.        The petition is directed against the order dated 15.09.2025 passed

                     below Exh.41 in Revision Application No.32 of 2025 granting liberty to

                     the respondent – revisional petitioner to implead the persons whose

                     names were provisionally accepted.

                     3.        The controversy pertains to the Change Report No.1398 of 2024

                     which is reported by the petitioner and which pertains to period 2024-

                     2029. The change report was treated to be provisional report and

                     numbered as Misc. Application No.26 of 2025 and thereafter order of

                     provisional approval was passed on 29.05.2025. The order was subjected

                     Uday S. Jagtap                      1 of 5
                                                        904-11911-2025-WP=.doc



to challenge in Revision Application No.32 of 2025 by respondent nos.2

to 9.      The petitioner preferred Application Exh.41 raising preliminary

objection for maintainability of the revision for not joining the persons

whose names are provisionally approved vide order 29.05.2025.            The

application is objected by the respondents.       By impugned order, the

objection is upheld but the opportunity was given to the revisional

petitioner to implead those persons.

4.       Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

that revision application ought to have been rejected for non-joinder of

necessary parties.     It is impermissible under Section 73 r/w 73A of the

Maharashtra Public Trust act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”)

to infer any power under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC. It is submitted that

on couple of occasion, the revisional petitioner had an opportunity to

promptly implead those persons as a party to the revision but they failed

to avail the opportunity and the net result should have been rejection of

the revision. It is further submitted that by implication of Section 73 and

73A of the Act it was not open for the Court to exercise any suo motu

power or to call upon the revisional petitioner to implead the parties to

the revision.      It is vehemently submitted that no application was

preferred by the respondent nos. 2 to 9 as is contemplated by Section

73A of the Act seeking impleadment of the necessary parties. The Joint


Uday S. Jagtap                      2 of 5
                                                         904-11911-2025-WP=.doc



Charity Commissioner is stated to have committed error of jurisdiction in

passing the impugned order.

5.       The submissions are repelled by the learned counsel for the

respondents on the ground that the objection raised by the petitioner is

hyper-technical and curable. The petitioner also did not take any steps to

implead those persons in M.C.A. No.26 of 2025 or at least at the time of

immediately preceding the order dated 29.05.2025. It is contended that

it is permissible under Section 70A of the Act to invoke the inherent

powers and call upon the party to implead the left out parties. Lastly, it is

contended that the present respondent nos. 12 to 15 are those persons

who are impleaded in the revision application.

6.       The entire controversy revolves around as to whether the revision

would fail for not joining the respondent nos. 12 to 15 in time and

whether it is permissible to implead them.

7.       The Change Report bearing No.1398 of 2024 filed by the petitioner

is culminated into M.C.A. No. 26 of 2025. It is provisionally accepted

vide order dated 29.05.2025. The respondent nos. 12 to 15 were not

parties before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. In the revision memo

also they were not impleaded in the memo. The objection by Application

Exh.41 is sought to be raised that the revision would fail for non-joinder



Uday S. Jagtap                     3 of 5
                                                          904-11911-2025-WP=.doc



of necessary parties.

8.       By the impugned order, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner

permitted the respondent nos. 2 to 9 to implead those persons albeit

substance was found in the objection of the petitioner. The respondent

nos.12 to 15 are now parties before the revisional Court.

9.       The Joint Charity Commissioner is exercising jurisdiction under

Section 70A of the Act. The Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to the

proceedings under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act. It would be hyper-

technical approach to contend that the respondent nos. 2 to 9 had

opportunity on couple of occasion to implead the respondent nos. 12 to

15 as party respondents.      The revisional petition is still pending and it

would be in the interest of justice to permit the respondent nos. 2 to 9 to

join the necessary parties instead of dismissing it at the threshold. The

endavour of the judicial or quasi judicial forum would be to do the

substantial justice on the merits of the matter. The defect of impleadment

of the parties in the given circumstances is curable one, which is rightly

resorted to by the learned Judge. I do not find any error of jurisdiction in

the impugned order.

10.      A bare reading of Section 73A of the Act would disclose filing of an

application to join the party. The section cannot be read in isolation to



Uday S. Jagtap                      4 of 5
                                                         904-11911-2025-WP=.doc



infer that in the absence of any application it would not be open for the

revisional forum under Section 70A to direct the Revisional petitioner to

implead the parties. The conjoint reading of Sections 70A, 73 and 73A of

the Act would disclose that the direction given to implead the necessary

parties is within four corners of law. I do not find any substance in the

petition.

11.      The Writ Petition is dismissed.



                                              ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. )




Uday S. Jagtap                       5 of 5