1 42. SA 265.25 -.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.265 OF 2025 Adv. Ghanshyam Rajendra Dhole Vs. Chandrashekhar Anandrao Dandage and ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Mr. G. R. Dhole, Appellant in person. Mr. G. K. Mundhada and Mr. N. O. Dhoot, Advocates for respondent Nos.8, 9 and 12. CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J. DATE : 27.08.2026. . The present appellant has challenged the order dated 03.02.2020 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Malkapur in MJC No.6 of 2014 below Exhibit 1, whereby the application for condonation of delay came to be rejected. There is a delay of 17 years in filing the appeal against the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Buldhana Sub-region, Buldhana, on an application filed by one Mr. Omprakash Bhimrao Deshmukh under Section 50-A(1) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. 2. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Buldhana allowed the said application and confirmed the scheme in respect of Shri Sant Maroti Maharaj Sansthan, Makner, Tq. Malkapur, Dist. Buldhana, whereby the name of Anandrao Dhole, whom the appellant claims to be his 2 42. SA 265.25 -.odt grand-father, was permanently removed. The said order was passed on 30.10.1996. 3. The appellant filed an application before the learned District Judge for condonation of delay in the year 2013. The learned District Judge granted opportunity to the appellant to lead the evidence in support of the application and to establish sufficient cause for the delay. The appellant, who appeared in person, submitted that he came to know about the said scheme in the year 2013 and, therefore, filed the application thereafter. He further submitted that he belongs to Dhole family and under the scheme, there is a provision that a family member of Dhole family must be appointed as a Trustee in the said Trust. But none of the family member from Dhole family was there and, therefore, he has challenged the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and filed application for condonation of delay. 4. Considering the reasons given by the appellant, the learned District Judge rejected the application, as there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present Second Appeal. 5. The appellant, who appeared in person, submitted that Anandrao Dhole had created the Trust and was a Trustee of Shri Sant Maroti Maharaj Sansthan, Makner. It is also mentioned in Schedule – I, under the 3 42. SA 265.25 -.odt column relating to the Mode of Succession, that Mr. Anandrao Dhole will be a permanent Trustee and after his death, the vacancy would be filled from amongst the Family Members of the Dhole Family, which is not considered by the Assistant Charity, Commissioner. 6. However, the appellant has not explained the cause of delay and in what circumstances he came to know about the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in the year 1996. Even before this Court, the appellant is unable to furnish any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of 17 years in challenging the said order. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Baljeet Singh (D) thr. LR’s and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors, reported in 2020 ALL SCR 509, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that if for a long period, no grievance was made by the petitioners, the petitioners lose their right to complain. 8. In the present case also, the Scheme was framed in the year 1996, whereas the appellant raised his grievance before the learned District Court only in the year 2013. Considering the judgment relied upon by the respondents and the observations made by the learned District Court, no satisfactory reason is given for the delay. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the 4 42. SA 265.25 -.odt impugned order, as the appellant has failed to establish sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 9. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present Second Appeal. The Second Appeal, is therefore, dismissed at the stage of admission. (MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) T αɳɱαყ...