9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Agrawala, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR, Mr. Mehul Shah, Sr.Adv., Mr. Haresh Raichura, AOR, Saroj Raichura, Adv., Mr. Kalp Raichura, Adv., Mr. Ram Bhadauria, Adv., Mr. H.M Parikh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Bhargava V Desai, AOR, Mr. Hemang parikh, Adv., Mr. Rasesh Parikh, Adv., Ms. Aditi Diwan, Adv., Mr. Shivam Jasra, Adv., Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Adv., Ms. Taruna Singh Gohil, AOR, Ms. Ranu Purohit, Adv., Ms. Tanya Srivastava, Adv., Ms. Jasleen Bindra, Adv., Mr. Tushar Mehta, SGI And Mr. A P Mayee, AOR ORDER Leave granted. 2. Aggrieved by a detailed order passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, refusing to terminate the proceedings in two first appeals arising out of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r hearing both sides in due course. 6. It appears that the Charity Commissioner filed a draft Scheme to which the defendant no.1/2 filed objections. The other defendants (numbering 42) did not file any objections to the proposed Scheme. 7. A preliminary objection was raised by defendant no.1/2 that since the preliminary decree is under appeal before the High Court, the Scheme cannot be finalised till the final disposal of the appeal. 8. But overruling those objections, the City Civil Court passed a final decree on 29.06.1979 framing a Scheme for the administration of the Temple and for the management of the properties pertaining to the temple. 9. Challenging the final decree and the scheme framed therein, two separate appeals in first a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. K.P. Pandey and first appeal no.1374 of 1979 filed by Mr. K.C. Choudhary are permitted to be withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of first appeal no.1090 of 1979 and first appeal no. 1374 of 1979, the judgment rendered by the High Court is also liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The SLP is dismissed as withdrawn." 11. Despite the above order of this court, the High Court of Gujarat listed the appeals for hearing on 13.02.2014 along with the applications for withdrawal. On that date a note was filed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submitting that the proceedings stood terminated in view of the permission granted by this Court for the withdrawal of the appeals. But the High Court proceeded to hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... XLI Rule 22(4) CPC; or (b) when a transposition takes place in terms of Order XXIII Rule 1A CPC. In this case, there were no cross objections and hence Order XLI Rule 22(4) has no application. There was also no transposition and hence 3rd parties cannot seek to continue the appeals; (iii) Proceedings for the framing of a Scheme for the administration of a Trust are no doubt proceedings in rem. Therefore, up to the stage of passing of the final decree approving a Scheme, even 3rd parties are entitled to intervene and object to the whole or part of the Scheme. But once the final decree approving the Scheme is passed, any person objecting to the final decree should independently file an appeal and cannot ride piggyback on the appellants' sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
