904-11911-2025-WP=.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11911 OF 2025 Narayan Trimbak Surwase … Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra Thr. The Ministry Of Law And & Ors. … Respondents …………. Mr. Mukul Kulkarni i/b Chaitanya Khade for the Petitioner. Mr. Purshottam Chavan a/w Pravin Jadhav for Respondent Nos. 2 to 9. Mr. Sanjay D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 10 and 11 – State …………. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 29th AUGUST, 2026. P. C. : . Heard both sides. 2. The petition is directed against the order dated 15.09.2025 passed below Exh.41 in Revision Application No.32 of 2025 granting liberty to the respondent – revisional petitioner to implead the persons whose names were provisionally accepted. 3. The controversy pertains to the Change Report No.1398 of 2024 which is reported by the petitioner and which pertains to period 2024- 2029. The change report was treated to be provisional report and numbered as Misc. Application No.26 of 2025 and thereafter order of provisional approval was passed on 29.05.2025. The order was subjected Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 5 UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Digitally signed by UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Date: 2026.09.01 12:23:57 +0530 904-11911-2025-WP=.doc to challenge in Revision Application No.32 of 2025 by respondent nos.2 to 9. The petitioner preferred Application Exh.41 raising preliminary objection for maintainability of the revision for not joining the persons whose names are provisionally approved vide order 29.05.2025. The application is objected by the respondents. By impugned order, the objection is upheld but the opportunity was given to the revisional petitioner to implead those persons. 4. Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that revision application ought to have been rejected for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is impermissible under Section 73 r/w 73A of the Maharashtra Public Trust act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to infer any power under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC. It is submitted that on couple of occasion, the revisional petitioner had an opportunity to promptly implead those persons as a party to the revision but they failed to avail the opportunity and the net result should have been rejection of the revision. It is further submitted that by implication of Section 73 and 73A of the Act it was not open for the Court to exercise any suo motu power or to call upon the revisional petitioner to implead the parties to the revision. It is vehemently submitted that no application was preferred by the respondent nos. 2 to 9 as is contemplated by Section 73A of the Act seeking impleadment of the necessary parties. The Joint Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 5 904-11911-2025-WP=.doc Charity Commissioner is stated to have committed error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. 5. The submissions are repelled by the learned counsel for the respondents on the ground that the objection raised by the petitioner is hyper-technical and curable. The petitioner also did not take any steps to implead those persons in M.C.A. No.26 of 2025 or at least at the time of immediately preceding the order dated 29.05.2025. It is contended that it is permissible under Section 70A of the Act to invoke the inherent powers and call upon the party to implead the left out parties. Lastly, it is contended that the present respondent nos. 12 to 15 are those persons who are impleaded in the revision application. 6. The entire controversy revolves around as to whether the revision would fail for not joining the respondent nos. 12 to 15 in time and whether it is permissible to implead them. 7. The Change Report bearing No.1398 of 2024 filed by the petitioner is culminated into M.C.A. No. 26 of 2025. It is provisionally accepted vide order dated 29.05.2025. The respondent nos. 12 to 15 were not parties before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. In the revision memo also they were not impleaded in the memo. The objection by Application Exh.41 is sought to be raised that the revision would fail for non-joinder Uday S. Jagtap 3 of 5 904-11911-2025-WP=.doc of necessary parties. 8. By the impugned order, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner permitted the respondent nos. 2 to 9 to implead those persons albeit substance was found in the objection of the petitioner. The respondent nos.12 to 15 are now parties before the revisional Court. 9. The Joint Charity Commissioner is exercising jurisdiction under Section 70A of the Act. The Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to the proceedings under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act. It would be hyper- technical approach to contend that the respondent nos. 2 to 9 had opportunity on couple of occasion to implead the respondent nos. 12 to 15 as party respondents. The revisional petition is still pending and it would be in the interest of justice to permit the respondent nos. 2 to 9 to join the necessary parties instead of dismissing it at the threshold. The endavour of the judicial or quasi judicial forum would be to do the substantial justice on the merits of the matter. The defect of impleadment of the parties in the given circumstances is curable one, which is rightly resorted to by the learned Judge. I do not find any error of jurisdiction in the impugned order. 10. A bare reading of Section 73A of the Act would disclose filing of an application to join the party. The section cannot be read in isolation to Uday S. Jagtap 4 of 5 904-11911-2025-WP=.doc infer that in the absence of any application it would not be open for the revisional forum under Section 70A to direct the Revisional petitioner to implead the parties. The conjoint reading of Sections 70A, 73 and 73A of the Act would disclose that the direction given to implead the necessary parties is within four corners of law. I do not find any substance in the petition. 11. The Writ Petition is dismissed. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ) Uday S. Jagtap 5 of 5