1. This Second Appeal is filed by the original non applicants before the Deputy Charity Commissioner in a Change Report Enquiry.

2. The facts are as follows: There is a Public Trust known as Fakkruddin Shikshan Sanstha at Nagpur. One Haji Mustaq Ahmed and others filed a Change Report under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trust Act before the Deputy Charity Commissioner on 02.04.1992. It was registered as an Enquiry No. 895 of 1992. It was alleged that the election of managing committee was held on 19.01.1992 and Jainab Mustaq Kanoje was elected as Vice President and Chand Bee Suleman, Shaikh Ismail and Batul Bee were elected as Members of the Executive Committee. It was further alleged that Padmakar Bhanudas Ambore, Vice President, Dr. Habib Sher Mohd. Kanoje, Secretary, Shashikala Mudholkar and Mohd. Mustafa had resigned. Hence prayer was made to delete the names of these 4 trustees to substitute the names of those reporting trustees.

3. The Change Report was accepted on 04.08.1992. Necessary entry was taken in Schedule I. This order dated 04.08.1992 was challenged by filing revision No. 10 of 1992 by the respondent No.5. The revision and the appeal were allowed and the order passed was set aside. The matter was remanded by the Joint Charity Commissioner. Appeal was therefore preferred by Mustaq Mohamad i.e. the present respondent No.1 before the High Court and the said appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 15.11.1995. Therefore review application was preferred being Review Application No. 259 of 1995. Review application was disposed of and the orders passed by the Additional District Judge as well as Joint Charity Commissioner were set aside and the Joint Charity Commissioner was directed to hear the parties giving them opportunity of personal hearing and then decide the matter afresh. The Joint Charity Commissioner once again heard the revision and the appeal being Revision No. 10 of 1992 and Appeal No. 7 of 1993 and he remanded the matter to the Deputy Charity Commissioner for enquiry. The Deputy Charity Commissioner rejected the Change Report on the ground that the parties were reluctant to lead any evidence in the matter and prove that the change had occurred. This order was challenged by reporting trustees i.e. Haji Mustaq and others before the Joint Charity Commissioner once again. After giving opportunity to the parties and recording the evidence Joint Charity Commissioner accepted the Change Report. Being aggrieved by that the present appellants preferred application under Section 72 before the District Judge. The Additional District Judge who heard the appeal confirmed the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner and being aggrieved by that the present appellants that is the original non applicants have preferred this Second Appeal.

4. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:

Whether findings recorded by the Authorities that the appellants were not inducted as life members in the year 1986 is liable to be set aside for the reason that the material evidence tendered by the appellants on the aforesaid issue was not considered by the Authorities before rendering the aforesaid finding?

5. I have heard Shri Gordey learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Haq learned counsel for respondents 3 and 8, Shri Hedaoo learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Miss. T. Khan learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7.

6. Since this appeal has been admitted on the substantial question of law as referred to above I need to look into those aspects alone and none else although the matter was argued at great length by both the sides.

7. Shri Haq learned counsel for the respondent No.1 at the out set contends that there is no substantial question of law involved and what is being agitated is a question of fact only.

8. Shri Gordey on the other hand submitted that substantial question of law has been rightly formulated by the Court because according to him non consideration of the evidence r