1 956...odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1401 OF 2026 GEETA MANIKRAO PATIL AND ANOTHER VERSUS SANDHYA VISHWANATH TARATE AND OTHERS ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Dhengle Babasaheb A. Advocate for Respondents : Mr.Salgare Vitthal G. … CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 09th SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. The Petitioners are challenging the impugned order passed on an application to set aside the order dated 01.01.2026, passed below Exhibit 62, whereby the right to adduce the evidence of the present Petitioners has been forfeited. Even, the Application filed by the Petitioners for setting aside the forfieting evidence of the Petitioners, has been rejected vide order dated 05.01.2026. 2. It is the contention of the Petitioners that the enquiry under Section 41 E of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, is presently pending before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad. 3. It is submitted that the order came to be passed forfeiting the right to adduce evidence of the present Petitioners on the background 2026:BHC-AUG:42144 2 956...odt that, the witness who was suppose to be examined by the Petitioners was not available for the examination, hence the examination of witness could not take place Therefore, on the aforementioned ground, the Application has been filed for setting aside the order forfeiting the right to adduce evidence. 4. It is stated that the Advocate for the Petitioners could not remain present due to his personal difficulty, since his wife was admitted in the hospital. Although he had filed Application seeking adjournment, but the said Application was delayed by 20 to 30 minutes before the order has been passed by directing to close the evidence. 5. It is submitted that considering that the absence of the Advocate for the Petitioners was not intentional and an Application was belatedly filed for seeking adjournment. The order of no evidence deserves to be set aside and the matter may be kept for recording of evidence of the Applicant. The Application was opposed by the Respondent by filing a ‘say’ stating that the Application seeking extension of time dated 01.01.2026, was already rejected, therefore, the Application does not deserve any consideration. On this background the impugned order has been passed. 3 956...odt 6. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has drawn my attention to the roznama and submits that the findings recorded by the Joint Charity Commissioner, are contrary to the roznama. 7. Learned Advocate for Respondent no. 1 has filed his reply affidavit and submits that the present matter has been adjourned by the present Petitioner from time to time only with an intention to prolong the matter since an offence has been registered against the Petitioner under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and the Petitioner wants to prolong till the decision is given or an 'A' summary report is sanctioned in favour of the Petitioners. Therefore, the Petitioners have failed to examine the witness and adduce evidence, hence, the order to adduce evidence has been rightly forfeited. 8. I have heard the respective parties and perused the order impugned as well as Application filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has given an explanation for failure to adduce the evidence and also for failure to cause appearance on the day when the order has been passed i.e. 05.01.2026. 9. Considering the subject matter of the enquiry, if the order of no evidence is not set aside, it would cause irreparable loss and prejudice 4 956...odt to the rights of the present Petitioners to participate in the proceedings and even in the outcome of the decision, which is an enquiry pending before the Charity Commissioner. Therefore, in my view, in order to subserve the ends of justice the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside by granting opportunity to the Petitioner to lead evidence. 10. The Respondent herein can be compensated in terms of costs that can be granted for the inconvenience caused to the Respondent no. 1. The order below Exhibit 66 in Application no. 1 of 2021, passed by the Joint Commissioner, Aurangabad, is quashed and set aside, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/-. 11. At this juncture, it is pointed out by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that at the time of issuing notice itself, this Court has issued notice subject to condition that the Petitioners shall deposit an amount of Rs. 10,000/- in the office of Joint Charity Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. Therefore, they have already deposited the amount. Therefore, no further costs should be imposed on them. 12. The amount of Rs. 10,000/- so deposited by the Petitioners in the office of Joint Charity Commissioner shall be granted in favour of Respondent no. 1, by way of costs. 5 956...odt 13. With the aforementioned directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. 14. The parties shall appear before the Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad, on the scheduled date i.e. 21.09.2026, and the Petitioners shall adduce evidence and not seek further adjournments in the pending enquiry. ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. ) SPC