IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J.)
HARGOVINDAS SHIVLAL AND CO. and others - Petitioners.
vs.
M. J. CHAUDHARI, JUDGE,
SMALL CAUSES COURT AT BOMBAY and others - Respondents.
Advocates Appeared
For petitioners: Y. S. jahagirdar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Anita Castelino and Narayan Waghela
For respondent Nos. 2,4,5 and 16: Y. K. Tiwari
Bombay Public Trust Rules, 1951 - Eviction suit against trust Concerned parties represented validly constituted suit Subsequent changes taking place Not accommodated Held such a finding that decree not accommodated changes results in nullity of decree Interfered with and set aside. There is no dispute about the fact that when the suit was initially instituted, all trustees who were then borne on the record of the Charity Commissioner were impleaded. The Executing Court proceeded on the basis that by the time the decree was passed, only two of the initial trustees remained, while the others had ceased to be trustees. However, the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners clarifies that the names of the trustees on the record of the suit accorded with the Register maintained by the Charity Commissioner under the Bombay Public Trusts Rules, 1951. This affidavit is not controverted nor is any submission to the contrary urged at the hearing. The suit was validly instituted and the trust and its estate was duly and properly represented. It is impossible to hold that the decree which resulted was a nullity on the specious ground that certain changes have subsequently taken place in the constitution of a trust. Unless those alleged changes were accepted by the Charity Commissioner and were reflected in the record maintained by the Charity Commissioner under the Rules, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs were remiss in the obligation of impleading the current trustees. The finding that the decree is a nullity is, therefore, ex facie erroneous and has to be interfered with and set aside.
"(a) The defendants be ordered and decreed to hand over quiet vacant and peaceful possession of the plaintiffs plot of land admeasuring 7762.81 sq. yards. As per the said agreement dated 1 -11 -1975, along with the Buildings standing thereon."
An ex parte decree came to be passed on 2nd December, 1986 by the Court of Small Causes directing the second respondent to hand over possession of the suit premises consisting of the plot of land admeasuring 7762.81 sq.yards. The society took out Misc. Notice 232 of 1987 for setting aside the ex parte decree. On 11th January, 1988, the Court of Small Causes passed a conditional order to the effect that the ex parte decree would stand set aside upon the Defendants depositing an amount of Rs. 1,56,000/ - calculated as arrears of rent up to December 1987 within a period of three months from the date of the order. Liberty was granted to the respondent to at least deposit a reasonable amount within the stipulated period and to move the Court for extension of time. However, in default of compliance of the conditional order, the notice was to stand discharged. The operative order of the Court was to the following effect:
"On the defendants depositing Rs. 1,56,000/ - calculated by way of arrears of rent upto December, 1987 within three months from the date of this order this notice will stand as made absolute. Ex parte decree dated 2 -12 -1986 will stand as set aside and in that event the suit should come on board of this Court on 29 -4 -1988.
In case the defendants deposit a reasonable amount within stipulated period and make a request to this court for extension of time and satisfy this Court about their inability to deposit the whole amount within stipulated period, this court will consider the said request.
In absence of aforesaid requirements and satisfaction of this court, in case the defendants fail to deposit the aforesaid amount within stipulated period this notice will stand as discharged, and stay will stand as vacated. "
Admittedly, the conditional order of the Court of Small Causes was not complied with. As a result, the notice for setting aside the ex parte decree stood discharged and the decree attained finality. There is no dispute about the fact that the decree was executed thereafter.
2. The decree was thereafter set in execution and on 26th April, 1988, the petitioners executed the decree. Miscellaneous Notice 351 of 1988 was taken out before the Executing Court by one M. N. Kolwankar in his capacity as a Principal and Secretary of the second resp
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.