{"id":203309,"date":"2008-12-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinkar-indrabhan-kadaskar-vs-grampanchayat-bhagwatipur-on-2-december-2008"},"modified":"2017-03-02T21:09:07","modified_gmt":"2017-03-02T15:39:07","slug":"dinkar-indrabhan-kadaskar-vs-grampanchayat-bhagwatipur-on-2-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinkar-indrabhan-kadaskar-vs-grampanchayat-bhagwatipur-on-2-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Dinkar Indrabhan Kadaskar vs Grampanchayat Bhagwatipur on 2 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Dinkar Indrabhan Kadaskar vs Grampanchayat Bhagwatipur on 2 December, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: V.R. Kingaonkar<\/div>\n
                               (1)\n\n\n\n               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY\n\n                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n                 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.809 OF 2006\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n                                 IN\n                    FIRST APPEAL NO.829 OF 2003\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n     01.   Dinkar Indrabhan Kadaskar\n     02.   Kacheshwar Sukdeo Kadaskar\n     03.   Bapusaheb Changdeo Kadaskar\n     04.   Nivrutti Mahadu Kharde\n     05.   Babasaheb Birdu Dale\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n           No.1 to 5 R\/o Bhagwatipur\n           Taluka-Rahata, Dist-Ahmednagar\n     06.   Harikisan Yadavrao Kharde\n     07.   Dattatraya Sahebrao Kharde\n     08.   Sayaji Raghunath Kharde\n     09.   Laxman Murlidhar Nibe\n\n\n\n\n                               \n     10.   Goraksha Dnyandeo Kharde\n     11.   Sampatrao Bhagwantrao Khade\n     12.\n     13.\n                    \n           Dattatraya Mahadu Shelke\n           Kisan Jaywant Kharde\n           Nos. 6 to 13 R\/o Kolhar (Bk)\n           Taluka-Rahata, Dist-Ahmednagar                  APPLICANTS\n                   \n              VERSUS\n\n     01. Grampanchayat Bhagwatipur\n         Tq-Rahata, Dist-Ahmednagar\n         Through its Sarpanch\n      \n\n\n         Bhaskar Digambar Kharde\n   \n\n\n\n     02. Balasaheb Kisan Kharde\n         R\/o Bhagwatipur, Tq-Rahata\n         Dist-Ahmednagar\n\n     03. Haribhau Jijaba Kharde\n\n\n\n\n\n         R\/o Bhagwatipur, Tq-Rahata\n         Dist-Ahmednagar\n\n     04. Nandkishor Kondiram Kharde\n         R\/o Bhagwatipur, Tq-Rahata\n         Dist-Ahmednagar\n\n\n\n\n\n     05. Shankarrao Eknathrao Kharde\n         R\/o Kolhar (Bk) Tq-Rahata\n         Dist-Ahmednagar\n\n     06. Vasantrao Bhagwantrao Kharde\n         R\/o Kolhar (Bk). Tq-Rahata\n         Dist-Ahmednagar\n\n     07. Digambar Bhaurao Kharde               Deleted as per\n\n\n\n\n                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:06:37 :::\n                                               (2)\n\n         R\/o Kolhar (Bk) Tq-Rahata       Court's order\n         Dist-Ahmednagar                 dated 22.08.2007\n     08. The Charity Commissioner,\n         Maharashtra State,\n         3rd Floor, Dr.Annie Besant Road\n         Worli, Mumbai 400 018\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                \n     09. The Assistant Charity Commissioner,\n         Ahmednagar Region, Ganeshwadi,\n         Station Road, Ahmednagar            RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n                          .....\n     Mr.   P.R.Patil, Advocate for the applicants\n     Mr.   S.S.Manale, Advocate for respondent No.1\n     Mr.   N.K.Kakade, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 to 6\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n     Mr.   A.I.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.3\n     Mr.   S.P.Dound, AGP for respondent Nos. 8 and 9\n                          ......\n\n                                               [CORAM: V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.]\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n                                               Reserved on   : 17.11.2008\n                                               Pronounced on : 02.12.2008\n\n\n     JUDGMENT :\n<\/pre>\n
                            ig                 ----------------------------\n                          \n     1.           This         application is filed for review of order\n\n     dated        29th     September          2003 rendered by        this      Court,\n\n<\/pre>\n
     while disposing of First Appeal No.829\/2003 in view of<\/p>\n
     consent          terms filed by respondent Nos.                1 to 7 and to<\/p>\n
     direct denovo hearing of the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     2.           A      brief       resume    of background facts            may      be<\/p>\n
     stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     .            There        are     3    separate    temples        of     deities<\/p>\n
     Mahadeo,         Jagdamba and Vitthal at village Kolhar under<\/p>\n
     Shrirampur           Tehsil.          There are 3 separate trusts               for<\/p>\n
     management           of     the said temples.       A scheme, u\/s              50-A<\/p>\n
     (2)     of       the Bombay Public Trusts Act, was                  drawn       for<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                           (3)<\/span><\/p>\n
     management          of     the Trusts.       An application was                filed<\/p>\n
     for amalgamation of the three trusts.                        Consequent upon<\/p>\n
     inquiry,            learned     Assistant         Charity            Commissioner<\/p>\n
     directed        amalgamation of the said three trusts                          under<\/p>\n
     caption        “Kolhar        Bhagwatipur Devalaya Trust”                  bearing<\/p>\n
     registration             No.A-119.      He   prepared            a     scheme       in<\/p>\n
     respect        of     amalgamated       Trust.      An     application            was<\/p>\n
     moved by respondent Nos.                5, 6 and one Digamber Kharde<\/p>\n
     for modification of the scheme, invoking provisions of<\/p>\n
     section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, before the<\/p>\n
     District        Court bearing Trust Application                      No.08\/1992.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned        IVth       Additional District Judge,                 Ahmednagar,<\/p>\n
     held<\/p>\n
              that the scheme required certain                      modifications.\n<\/p>\n
     The     learned           Additional District Judge held that                     the<\/p>\n
     power     of selection of trustees should be given to the<\/p>\n
     devotees.            He     observed    that the         devotees         are     the<\/p>\n
     proper        persons       to judge performance of the                   trustees<\/p>\n
     and     select them.           He directed that the trustees shall<\/p>\n
     be     from     village        Kolhar      and the       Gramsabha         of     the<\/p>\n
     village shall select the trustees.\n<\/p>\n
     3.         The judgment and order rendered by the learned<\/p>\n
     Additional            District       Judge   in       Trust           Application<\/p>\n
     No.08\/1992          was     challenged by way of appeal filed                       in<\/p>\n
     this     Court.           The First Appeal No.829\/2003,                 preferred<\/p>\n
     by     respondents          No.1 to 4, came to be disposed of                       in<\/p>\n
     view     of consent terms filed by the parties.                           By order<\/p>\n
     dated     29th        September 2003, this Court directed                        that<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                           (4)<\/span><\/p>\n
     the     first     appeal stands disposed of in terms of                          the<\/p>\n
     compromise.\n<\/p>\n
     4.        The applicants are not original parties to the<\/p>\n
     litigation        before the Assistant Charity                    Commissioner<\/p>\n
     or      before         the       District     Court.        They        are      the<\/p>\n
     inhabitants           of    village       Kolhar     (Bk).         They        claim<\/p>\n
     themselves        to be interested persons in the affairs of<\/p>\n
     the     Trust.         They have filed this review                 application<\/p>\n
     alleging that the consent terms are collusive inasmuch<\/p>\n
     as     the respondent Nos.            1, 3, 5 and 6 got                themselves<\/p>\n
     declared as life trustees and the affairs of the Trust<\/p>\n
     would     be<\/p>\n
                      managed by the said respondents or                       through<\/p>\n
     their legal heirs.               It is contended that whole attempt<\/p>\n
     of     bringing        about       the compromise        was      to     maintain<\/p>\n
     control        over        the    Trust    by the    family        members         of<\/p>\n
     respondent        Nos.           1 to 4 in perpetuity.             They        would<\/p>\n
     further        submit that the consent terms are contrary to<\/p>\n
     the provisions of Rule 3 and 3-A of Order XXIII of the<\/p>\n
     Code     of     Civil        Procedure.      They    asserted          that      the<\/p>\n
     consent        terms are outcome of fraud.                They would point<\/p>\n
     out     that     as        per the consent terms,           the        scheme      is<\/p>\n
     modified to ensure that the trustees shall work during<\/p>\n
     their     whole        lifetime and any vacancy arising due                        to<\/p>\n
     death     or     resignation would be filled up as                       per     the<\/p>\n
     will     of     the surviving trustees.              The applicants              are<\/p>\n
     aggrieved        by the consent terms and seek review of the<\/p>\n
     order rendered in pursuance to the consent terms.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                              (5)<\/span><\/p>\n
     5.           The application is resisted by respondent Nos.\n<\/p>\n
     1     to     4     on various grounds.           They       denied        that     the<\/p>\n
     consent           terms        are outcome of any fraud.             They        would<\/p>\n
     submit           that     the applicants have no locus                 standi        to<\/p>\n
     challenge the consent terms.                    They were not parties to<\/p>\n
     the        original proceedings before the Assistant Charity<\/p>\n
     Commissioner              or    in     the proceedings u\/s           72     of     the<\/p>\n
     Bombay           Public        Trusts Act, 1950 and,          therefore,           are<\/p>\n
     incompetent             to     file    the review      application.               They<\/p>\n
     asserted           that the review application is filed with                           a<\/p>\n
     view        to     harass        the    trustees.       Consequently,             they<\/p>\n
     sought dismissal of the application.\n<\/p>\n
     6.           The        applicants        are   inhabitants          of     village<\/p>\n
     Kolhar.             The        judgment    rendered         by     the      learned<\/p>\n
     Additional              District Judge would make it manifest that<\/p>\n
     the        trustees were to be selected from inhabitants                             of<\/p>\n
     village           Kolhar (Bk) as per decision of the Gramsabha.\n<\/p>\n
     This        part        of the direction is given serious jolt                       as<\/p>\n
     per        terms        of the compromise because             the      respondent<\/p>\n
     Nos.1        to     4     are     Grampanchayat       and        inhabitants         of<\/p>\n
     village           Bhagwatipur.         The applicants are devotees                   of<\/p>\n
     the        deities        and are persons having interest                   in     the<\/p>\n
     affairs           of the public trust.           They answer description<\/p>\n
     of the expression “persons having interest” as defined<\/p>\n
     in     section           2 (10) of the Bombay Public                Trusts        Act,<\/p>\n
     1950.            Section 2 (10) of the Bombay Public Trust Act,<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                              (6)<\/span><\/p>\n
     1950 reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
              Sec.2 (10) “Person having interest ” includes-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                a)        in     the case of a temple, a person who                     is<\/p>\n
                entitled          to     attend at or is in the habit                   of<\/p>\n
                attending              the    performance      of      worship          or<\/p>\n
                service          in the temple, or who is entitled                      to<\/p>\n
                partake or is in the habit of partaking in the<\/p>\n
                distribution of gifts thereof.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     7.         Considering            the     nature     of        modifications,<\/p>\n
     directed<\/p>\n
                     by the learned Additional District Judge, it<\/p>\n
     will have to be said that the applicants are aggrieved<\/p>\n
     persons,        being interested in the affairs of the                          said<\/p>\n
     Trust.         The status of the applicants would give                          them<\/p>\n
     legal     right to maintain the review application though<\/p>\n
     they were not parties to the proceedings.                          This Court,<\/p>\n
     in     “Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd.                   V\/s Ameer Trading<\/p>\n
     Corporation Ltd.,” (AIR 2003 Bom 228) held that review<\/p>\n
     petition        at        instance      of    person not       party      to     the<\/p>\n
     proceedings,              but      being       “aggrieved         person”          is<\/p>\n
     maintainable.              This Court relied on “Smt.Jatan Kanwar<\/p>\n
     Golcha        V\/s     M\/s.Golcha Properties Pvt.                  Ltd.,”        (AIR<\/p>\n
     1971     SC     374) in support of such conclusion.                         It     is<\/p>\n
     observed:\n<\/p>\n
                “Having          heard       learned counsel, I am             of     the<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                (7)<\/span><\/p>\n
                  opinion that expression person aggrieved under<\/p>\n
                  Order        47    Rule        1 is wider in         amplitude          and<\/p>\n
                  scope than the expression Party under Order 47<\/p>\n
                  Rule 2 which restricts the parties to the lis.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  This     is       the        view     taken by     Apex        Court      in<\/p>\n
                  Smt.Jatan Golcha (supra).                   It is also the view<\/p>\n
                  of the Apex Court in the case of K.                            Ajit (AIR<\/p>\n
                  1997     SC       3277).            In the case      of     K.Ajit        in<\/p>\n
                  proceedings            arose        from an Order         of     Central<\/p>\n
                  Administration               Tribunal.        The issues           raised<\/p>\n
                  were     whether power of review was available to<\/p>\n
                  the     Tribunal and whether a person not a party<\/p>\n
                  to<\/p>\n
                         the        order could prefer a             review.           After<\/p>\n
                  considering            the     scope and effect thereto                   in<\/p>\n
                  Paragraph          4        of the judgment, the Apex                Court<\/p>\n
                  finally observed as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  “We     therefore find that a right of review                             is<\/p>\n
                  available              to      the      aggrieved        persons          on<\/p>\n
                  restricted ground mentioned in Order 47 of the<\/p>\n
                  Code     of       Civil Procedure if filed within                       the<\/p>\n
                  period of limitation.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     8.           Having       regard to such a legal position, I                           am<\/p>\n
     of     the    opinion that the applicants are                         entitled         to<\/p>\n
     file     review       application.               The application cannot                be<\/p>\n
     dismissed for want of locus standi.                          Applicants may be<\/p>\n
     deemed       as     “aggrieved persons” being                   the      interested<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                               (8)<\/span><\/p>\n
     persons in view of section 2 (10) of the Bombay Public<\/p>\n
     Trusts Act, 1950.\n<\/p>\n
     9.           Coming to the merits of the rival contentions,<\/p>\n
     it     may     be          noticed that the order of this                     Court        is<\/p>\n
     rendered          in       terms of the consent terms filed by                            the<\/p>\n
     parties        to the first appeal.                  Admittedly, the                matter<\/p>\n
     relates        to          affairs of the Trust properties.                         It     is<\/p>\n
     necessary, therefore, to see whether due compliance of<\/p>\n
     order        XXIII Rule 3 B of the Civil Procedure Code                                  was<\/p>\n
     made.          The          lis        before        the        Court         indicated<\/p>\n
     representative               action.       It is amply clear that                    leave<\/p>\n
     of     the     Court
\n                                 ig  was not sought for entering                   into        the<\/p>\n
     compromise.                It is also manifest that due notice                           was<\/p>\n
     not given by this Court under Sub Rule (2) of Rule 3-B<\/p>\n
     of     Order        XXIII         of the Civil        Procedure            Code.          The<\/p>\n
     compliance             of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 3-B of Order XXIII<\/p>\n
     of     the     Civil Procedure Code is mandatory in                              nature.\n<\/p>\n
     Rule     3-B        of Order XXIII of the Civil Procedure                                Code<\/p>\n
     reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                  “3B.          No agreement or compromise to be entered<\/p>\n
                  in        a    representative           suit without             leave       of<\/p>\n
                  Court          –     (1) No agreement or compromise in                         a<\/p>\n
                  representative              suit   shall           be     entered         into<\/p>\n
                  without            the     leave   of     the       Court        expressly<\/p>\n
                  recorded             in    the proceedings;             and      any      such<\/p>\n
                  agreement             or compromise entered into                    without<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                         (9)<\/span><\/p>\n
               the     leave       of the Court so recorded shall                     be<\/p>\n
               void.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (2)     Before       granting     such leave,            the        Court<\/p>\n
               shall       give     notice in such manner as                  it     may<\/p>\n
               think       fit to such persons as may appear to it<\/p>\n
               to be interested in the suit.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Explanation         –      In this rule,        “representative<\/p>\n
               suit” means-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               a) a suit under section 91 or section 92<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               b) a suit under rule 8 of Order I,<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               c) a suit in which the manager of an undivided<\/p>\n
               Hindu       family sues or is sued as                 representing<\/p>\n
               the other members of the family,<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               d)     any other suit in which the decree                       passed<\/p>\n
               may,        by virtue of the provisions of this Code<\/p>\n
               or     of     any    other law for the time                being       in<\/p>\n
               force,       bind       any person who is not              named       as<\/p>\n
               party to the suit.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     10.       The     Apex       Court     in “A.A.        Gopalkrishnan             V.\n<\/p>\n
     Cochin    DEvaswom        Board and others” (2007) 7                   SCC     482<\/p>\n
     held     that the High Court can examine validity of                           the<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                        (10)<\/span><\/p>\n
     compromise     decree          questioned even by a third                  party.\n<\/p>\n
     It is observed:\n<\/p>\n
             “The         properties          of      deities,        temples        and<\/p>\n
             Devaswom          Boards, require to be protected                       and<\/p>\n
             safeguarded              by       their        trustees\/archakas\/<\/p>\n
             shebaits\/employees.                   Instances are many where<\/p>\n
             persons       entrusted           with the duty of              managing<\/p>\n
             and     safeguarding             the properties of              temples,<\/p>\n
             deities       and Devaswom Boards have usurped                          and<\/p>\n
             misappropriated               such properties by setting up<\/p>\n
             false       claims        of     ownership        or     tenancy,         or<\/p>\n
             adverse
\n                      ig   possession.               This is      possible          only<\/p>\n
             with        the    passive or active collusion of                       the<\/p>\n
             authorities            concerned.        Such acts of            “fences<\/p>\n
             eating       the       crops”         should      be     dealt         with<\/p>\n
             sternly.           The Government members or                    trustees<\/p>\n
             of     boards\/trusts,             and      devotees         should        be<\/p>\n
             vigilant          to     prevent any such            usurpation           or<\/p>\n
             encroachment.                 It is also the duty of               courts<\/p>\n
             to     protect         and safeguard the             properties           of<\/p>\n
             religious          and        charitable       institutions            from<\/p>\n
             wrongful claims or misappropriation.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     11.     It     is     the duty of the Courts to protect                         and<\/p>\n
     safeguard     the     religious and charitable                   institutions<\/p>\n
     from evil hands.          It is amply clear on bare perusal of<\/p>\n
     sub   rule    (2)     of       Rule 3B of Order           XXIII       of     Civil<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                           (11)<\/span><\/p>\n
     Procedure          Code     that the     expression      “representative<\/p>\n
     suit” would include any suit filed u\/s 91 or 92 of the<\/p>\n
     Civil        Procedure Code.          The proceedings u\/s 72 of               the<\/p>\n
     Bombay        Public       Trust     Act are akin to lis in            such       a<\/p>\n
     representative            suit.       Obviously, while allowing               the<\/p>\n
     parties        to     enter     into    compromise,      due      notice        to<\/p>\n
     “interested          persons”       was required to be given.                 The<\/p>\n
     Court        is also required to see whether the                  compromise<\/p>\n
     is    in      the interest of the Trust.            The terms          of     the<\/p>\n
     compromise,          which     are not for welfare of the                Trust,<\/p>\n
     can     be     rejected        notwithstanding        consent         of      the<\/p>\n
     parties.            Therefore,       it appears that no such             effort<\/p>\n
     was made by this Court to examine whether the terms of<\/p>\n
     the     compromise were brought about in order to                        secure<\/p>\n
     interest        of the Trust and to call upon the interested<\/p>\n
     persons        by     giving due notice to file objections,                     if<\/p>\n
     any, before the consent terms were accepted.\n<\/p>\n
     12.          Mr.Kakade, learned advocate for the contesting<\/p>\n
     respondents,           would       submit that power to         review        the<\/p>\n
     order cannot be invoked on basis of reconsideration of<\/p>\n
     same facts.          He seeks to rely on “T.           Thimmaiah (D) by<\/p>\n
     L.Rs.         V.     Venkatachala Raju (D) by L.Rs.” (2008                    AIR<\/p>\n
     SCW 3980).          He also invited my attention to a Division<\/p>\n
     Bench        judgment      of Gujrath High Court           in     “Ahmedabad<\/p>\n
     Electricity          Co.       Ltd., V\/s.    State of        Gujarath         and<\/p>\n
     others”        (AIR 2003 Guj 157).          A Division Bench of               the<\/p>\n
     Gujarat        High Court held that mere erroneous                    decision<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                              (12)<\/span><\/p>\n
     by     itself        would          not permit the Court           to      undertake<\/p>\n
     review.            The    Division           Bench held     that        the    review<\/p>\n
     jurisdiction             can    be exercised only on the ground                       of<\/p>\n
     error     apparent             on the face of record and not on                     any<\/p>\n
     other     ground.              He     also     seeks to     rely        on    certain<\/p>\n
     observations             in “Lily Thomas etc V.              Union of India &<\/p>\n
     Ors” 2000 (3) ALL MR 251 (SC).                      The Apex Court held in<\/p>\n
     the     given case that review application under Order 47<\/p>\n
     Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code cannot be treated as an<\/p>\n
     appeal in disguise.                  It is further held that it can be<\/p>\n
     exercised          for     correction          of a mistake          and      not     to<\/p>\n
     substitute a view.\n<\/p>\n
     13.          Mr.     Patil, learned advocate appearing for the<\/p>\n
     applicants, invited my attention to judgment of Single<\/p>\n
     Bench        in     “Dr.Madan Gopal V.              Din Dayal and            another”\n<\/p>\n
     (AIR     1988        P    & H 124).           The   learned      Single        Judge,<\/p>\n
     Hon’ble           M.M.Punchhi, as he then was, held that                         leave<\/p>\n
     of     the        Court for purpose of compromise                    under       Order<\/p>\n
     XXIII        Rule 3B ought to be obtained and the compromise<\/p>\n
     entered           into without taking the Court into confidence<\/p>\n
     and     without          compliance of Rule 3B would be                      void     ab<\/p>\n
     initio.           Therefore, the order to withdraw the petition<\/p>\n
     on     basis        of such compromise was held as                      capable       of<\/p>\n
     being        recalled.           In     “Vasant Jaiwantrao            Mahajan         V.\n<\/p>\n
     Tukaram           Mahadaji Patil” (AIR 1960 Bom 485) this court<\/p>\n
     observed:\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                        (13)<\/span><\/p>\n
                “If the relevant provision of law has not been<\/p>\n
                considered       at the time of passing the                     order,<\/p>\n
                such    an      order can and should be reviewed                       if<\/p>\n
                necessary       by the Judge who passes that                      order<\/p>\n
                or by his successor.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     14.        Considering           the    background           facts       of     the<\/p>\n
     present case, it prima facie appears that the terms of<\/p>\n
     the compromise were brought into existence with a view<\/p>\n
     to    provide controlling power only to certain                          members<\/p>\n
     of Kharde family.          There is non compliance of Rule 3<\/p>\n
     of    Order XXIII of Civil Procedure Code while                          passing<\/p>\n
     the order under review.                In these circumstances, it is<\/p>\n
     necessary     to        recall    the      order      dated         29.09.2003<\/p>\n
     rendered     in First Appeal No.829\/2003.                      Consequently,<\/p>\n
     the     application         is    allowed.          The        order          dated<\/p>\n
     29.09.2003         is      recalled       and      the       first         appeal<\/p>\n
     No.829\/2003 is restored to its original position.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ]
\n                                                           JUDGE<\/p>\n
     drp\/ra809-06<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:37 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Dinkar Indrabhan Kadaskar vs Grampanchayat Bhagwatipur on 2 December, 2008 Bench: V.R. Kingaonkar (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.809 OF 2006 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.829 OF 2003 01. Dinkar Indrabhan Kadaskar 02. Kacheshwar Sukdeo Kadaskar 03. Bapusaheb Changdeo Kadaskar 04. Nivrutti Mahadu Kharde […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-203309","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDinkar Indrabhan Kadaskar vs Grampanchayat Bhagwatipur on 2 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinkar-indrabhan-kadaskar-vs-grampanchayat-bhagwatipur-on-2-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dinkar Indrabhan Kadaskar vs Grampanchayat Bhagwatipur on 2 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinkar-indrabhan-kadaskar-vs-grampanchayat-bhagwatipur-on-2-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-12-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-02T15:39:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinkar-indrabhan-kadaskar-vs-grampanchayat-bhagwatipur-on-2-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinkar-indrabhan-kadaskar-vs-grampanchayat-bhagwatipur-on-2-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dinkar Indrabhan Kadaskar vs Grampanchayat Bhagwatipur on 2 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-02T15:39:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinkar-indrabhan-kadaskar-vs-grampanchayat-bhagwatipur-on-2-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2282,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinkar-indrabhan-kadaskar-vs-grampanchayat-bhagwatipur-on-2-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinkar-indrabhan-kadaskar-vs-grampanchayat-bhagwatipur-on-2-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinkar-indrabhan-kadaskar-vs-grampanchayat-bhagwatipur-on-2-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Dinkar Indrabhan Kadaskar vs Grampanchayat Bhagwatipur on 2 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-02T15:39:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinkar-indrabhan-kadaskar-vs-grampanchayat-bhagwatipur-on-2-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinkar-indrabhan-kadaskar-vs-grampanchayat-bhagwatipur-on-2-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinkar-indrabhan-kadaskar-vs-grampanchayat-bhagwatipur-on-2-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dinkar Indrabhan Kadaskar vs Grampanchayat Bhagwatipur on 2 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dinkar Indrabhan Kadaskar vs Grampanchayat Bhagwatipur on 2 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinkar-indrabhan-kadaskar-vs-grampanchayat-bhagwatipur-on-2-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dinkar Indrabhan Kadaskar vs Grampanchayat Bhagwatipur on 2 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinkar-indrabhan-kadaskar-vs-grampanchayat-bhagwatipur-on-2-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-02T15:39:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinkar-indrabhan-kadaskar-vs-grampanchayat-bhagwatipur-on-2-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinkar-indrabhan-kadaskar-vs-grampanchayat-bhagwatipur-on-2-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dinkar Indrabhan Kadaskar vs Grampanchayat Bhagwatipur on 2 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-02T15:39:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinkar-indrabhan-kadaskar-vs-grampanchayat-bhagwatipur-on-2-december-2008"},"wordCount":2282,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinkar-indrabhan-kadaskar-vs-grampanchayat-bhagwatipur-on-2-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinkar-indrabhan-kadaskar-vs-grampanchayat-bhagwatipur-on-2-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinkar-indrabhan-kadaskar-vs-grampanchayat-bhagwatipur-on-2-december-2008","name":"Dinkar Indrabhan Kadaskar vs Grampanchayat Bhagwatipur on 2 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-02T15:39:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinkar-indrabhan-kadaskar-vs-grampanchayat-bhagwatipur-on-2-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinkar-indrabhan-kadaskar-vs-grampanchayat-bhagwatipur-on-2-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinkar-indrabhan-kadaskar-vs-grampanchayat-bhagwatipur-on-2-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dinkar Indrabhan Kadaskar vs Grampanchayat Bhagwatipur on 2 December, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203309","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=203309"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203309\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203309"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203309"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203309"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}