On 18th January, 2011, this Court directed that these Appeals will be heard and disposed of finally at the stage of admission. In view of the settled law, an Appeal under Section 72(4) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 is maintainable only on a substantial question of law. Following substantial questions of law arise in the Appeals.

(i) Whether any period of limitation is applicable for exercise of power of revision under Section 70(A) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act")?.

(ii) If it is held that no period of limitation is prescribed for exercise of power under Section 70(A) of the said Act, whether the power is required to be exercised within a reasonable time from the date of passing the impugned order?

2. The learned counsel appearing for the parties were already put to notice that the Appeals will be heard on the aforesaid substantial questions of law.

3. As observed by this Court earlier, this is an unfortunate litigation between two Trusts which are founded in the name of the father of the nation. Considering the questions of law framed, it is not necessary to go into the details of the dispute between the parties. On 19th August, 1977, the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner accepted the change report Nos.539 of 1977 and 540 of 1977. The change report No.539 of 1977 was in respect of land bearing Survey No.36 Hissa No.2 situated at Kothrud, Pune. The prayer in the said change report was that the said property be shown as the property of the appellant Trust by making a necessary entry in Schedule-I.

The change report No.540 of 1977 was in respect of land bearing Survey No.36/1B admeasuring 7 Are at Kothrud, Pune. The prayer therein was that the entry of the said property be made in Schedule-I as the property of the appellant-Trust.

4. For challenging the said orders on the said two change reports, the first respondent preferred two separate revision applications under Section 70(A) of the said Act. The said revision applications were filed before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Region, Pune. Various objections were raised by the appellant including an objection that there was an inordinate delay of 23 years and 7 months in filing the revision applications. It was contended that the revision applications were barred by limitation. The said objection has been noted in the Judgment delivered by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner. One of the findings recorded by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner is that there was no prescribed period of limitation applicable to revision applications under Section 70(A) of the said Act. By Judgment and Order dated 11th September, 2001, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner allowed both the revision applications preferred by the first respondent and by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders, rejected the change reports. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner on the revision applications, the present appellant preferred applications under Section 72(1) of the said Act before the District Court. Apart from other contentions on merits, it was urged before the learned District Judge that there was a gross delay in filing the revision applications, in as much as the revision application were preferred after 23 years and 7 months from the date of passing orders by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner. The said objection was overruled by the learned District Judge by placing reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Virbala K. Kewalram Vs. Ramchandra Lalchand 1997 Mh.L.J. (1) 94. The learned District Judge observed that this Court has held that there was no prescribed period of limitation and in fact this Court held that the revision application filed after 28 years was maintainable.

5. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that even assuming that there was no prescribed period of limitation for filing a revision