S.C.Gupte, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule.

2. By consent of counsel, the petition is taken up for hearing forthwith. The controversy in the present petition concerns impleadment of the petitioner as a party respondent to the revision application filed by respondent no.2 before the Joint Charity Commissioner. The petitioner applied for deletion of his name from the cause title on the ground that he is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the revision. The application was rejected by the Joint Charity Commissioner. That order is challenged in the present petition.

3. A few facts of the case may be noted as follows:

Respondent no.3 is a public charitable trust registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1951 ("the Act"). Respondent nos.4 to 7 are the trustees for the time being of respondent no.3trust. The petitioner is an extrustee of respondent no.3trust. The trust property originally comprised of an immovable property being land admeasuring 5, 625 square meters at 77, M.G.Road, Deraser lane, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai 400 077 ("the subject land"). On 28.9.1985, the then trustees of respondent no.3 entered into an agreement for sale of the subject land with one Jasmine Builders Pvt. Ltd (subsequently amalgamated with Satellite Developers Pvt. Ltd). Clause 10 of this agreement required that the purchaser was obliged to lease certain structures which existed on the subject land (being a sanitorium and toilet blocks) to respondent no.3 for a period of 99 years (These structures along with the land were accordingly to be the subject matter of conveyance to be executed by respondent no.3trust and were in turn to be leased to the trust.) On 25.1.1989, the Charity Commissioner granted sanction under section 36 of the Act for sale of the subject land at or for a valuable consideration of Rs.53, 75, 000/. Much after this order, i.e. nearly over 9 years thereafter, the petitioner was inducted on the board of trustees of respondent no.3trust. His name was duly entered in schedule III to reflect his appointment as an additional trustee. On 22.4.2003, the then trustees of respondent no.3trust (which included the petitioner) executed a registered conveyance of the subject land in favour of Satellite Developers Pvt. Ltd. On 28.5.2003, pursuant to clause 10 of the agreement for sale, Satellite Developers Pvt. Ltd executed a lease deed in favour of respondent no.3trust in respect of the two structures, namely, the sanitorium and the toilet blocks for a period of 99 years. Soon thereafter, by an agreement executed by the then trustees of the trust (including the petitioner), the structures were surrendered by the trustees to Satellite Developers Pvt. Ltd for a consideration of Rs.12, 25, 000/. On 7.8.2003, the then trustees of respondent no.3trust (including the petitioner) filed a change report with respondent no.1 consequent to the conveyance of the subject land along with all its structures (including the sanitorium and toilet blocks) to Satellite Developers Pvt. Ltd. On 2.9.2003, the Joint Charity Commissioner issued an order accepting this change report and deleting the subject land including the sanitorium and toilet blocks from the schedule of properties of respondent no.3trust. Sometime between 2003 and 2007, the sanitorium and toilet blocks were demolished by Satellite Developers Pvt. Ltd and in their place a new building was constructed. The flats in this building have been sold by the developers to various third parties. On or about 28.3.2007, the petitioner tendered his resignation as an additional trustee of respondent no.3 trust. The resignation was accepted. The petitioner, accordingly, ceased to be a trustee. The change report communicating cessation of his trusteeship was accepted by the Charity Commissioner. Much later, i.e. on or about 19.8.2014, that is to say, about 11 years after the passing of the order by the Joint Charity Commissioner accepting the change report concerning t