The court recognized the necessity to allow amendments and additional evidence in light of fraud allegations, emphasizing the appellate powers under Section 72 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act.

JUDGMENT :

N.J. JAMADAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. The Petitioners who claimed to be the Trustees of the Saraswatibai Bishwambharlal Charityable Trust (“the Trust”) take exception to an order dated 14^th August 2025 passed in Chamber Summons No. 1681 of 2018 in Charity Application No. 14 of 2016, whereby the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court allowed the Chamber Summons and permitted the Applicants therein to carry out necessary amendment in the Charity Application and also produce additional documents, keeping open the issue of marking of documents as admitted in evidence.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts can be stated as under:

3.1 Sushil Jalan (R3) filed a Change Report No. 4905 of 2012 to delete the names of Krishna Gopal Maheshwari, M. P. Patkar and Badriprasad Sharma from Schedule-I of the Trust as Krishna Maheshwari and M. P. Patkar had allegedly resigned from the office of the Trustees/Manager and Badriprasad Sharma was reported dead.

3.2 By an order dated 9^th January 2013, the said Change Report was accepted. In the meanwhile, Krishna Gopal Maheshwari filed another Change Report bearing No. 369 of 2013. Apart from the later Change Report, Respondent Nos. 3, 5 and 6 also filed a Change Report No. 370 of 2013.

3.3 Change Report No. 369 of 2013, the Petitioners alleged, was decided ex parte by an order dated 1^st March 2013. The said Change Report was accepted and the names of Hiralal M. Somany, Sushil Jalan and Karan Maheshwari, were ordered to be deleted from Schedule-I of the Trust.

3.4 Aggrieved by the orders passed in the aforesaid Change Reports, the Appeals came to be filed before the Joint Charity Commissioner.

3.5 By judgment and order dated 28^th January 2016 in Appeal No. 8 of 2013 filed against the order in Change Report No. 369 of 2013, the learned Charity Commissioner was persuaded to allow the Appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner and remit the Change Report No. 369 of 2013 to the Assistant Charity Commissioner for fresh enquiry.

3.5 Being aggrieved, the Respondent, Sunil Damani (R2) preferred an Application, being Charity Application No. 14 of 2016 before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court under Section 72 (which came to be deleted by Maharashtra Act 55 of 2017 with effect from 10^th October 2017) of the MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC TRUST ACT , 1950 (“The Act, 1950”).

3.6 In the said Application, the Applicants took out Chamber Summons No. 1681 of 2018 seeking leave to amend the Application in accordance with the Schedule of amendment appended thereto, and produce the documents as well.

3.7 By an order dated 3^rd December 2018, the learned Judge, City Civil Court rejected the said Application. The said order was assailed in Writ Petition No. 611 of 2019. By an order dated 4^th March 2021, this Court was persuaded to set aside the said order and remit the said Chamber Summons for fresh decision with a direction to the learned Judge, City Civil Court to only take into account the relevancy and not the admissibility or otherwise of the documents sought to be produced by the Applicants.

3.8 Review Petition No. 26 of 2021, filed by the original Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 was rejected by the learned Single Judge. However, it was clarified that the issue of admissibility of the documents can also be looked into by the City Civil Court at an appropriate stage.

3.9 Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 carried the matter to the Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos. 20565 and 20566 of 2021. While declinin