Public trust scheme proceedings continue despite death of an applicant; civil abatement rules and CPC substitution do not apply.

Proceedings under Section 50A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act for framing, amalgamating, or modifying a trust scheme do not abate on the death of one applicant, because the power is a statutory, public-oriented function of the Charity Commissioner and is not dependent on every applicant remaining on record. Procedural rules cannot defeat that power through ordinary civil abatement principles. Rule 7 of the Bombay Public Trusts Rules and the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act do not import the Civil Procedure Code as controlling procedure for Section 50A inquiries, so delayed or absent substitution does not bar continuation of the proceeding.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether proceedings for framing a scheme under Section 50A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 abate on the death of one of the applicants if substitution is delayed or not made within time; (ii) whether the procedure contemplated by Rule 7 of the Bombay Public Trusts Rules, 1951 and the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 imports the Civil Procedure Code into proceedings under Section 50A.

Issue (i): whether proceedings for framing a scheme under Section 50A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 abate on the death of one of the applicants if substitution is delayed or not made within time.

Analysis: Section 50A empowers the Charity Commissioner to frame, amalgamate, or modify a scheme for proper management of a public trust either on his own motion or on an application by two or more persons having an interest in the trust. The power is intended to protect public trust administration and is not dependent on the continued participation of every applicant. A procedural rule cannot curtail or defeat a statutory power conferred for public purposes. Since the proceeding is initiated to enable the Charity Commissioner to consider the need for a scheme, the death of one applicant does not attract abatement in the manner of ordinary civil litigation.

Conclusion: the proceeding under Section 50A does not abate for non-substitution or belated substitution of a deceased applicant.

Issue (ii): whether the procedure contemplated by Rule 7 of the Bombay Public Trusts Rules, 1951 and the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 imports the Civil Procedure Code into proceedings under Section 50A.

Analysis: Rule 7 only regulates the manner of inquiry and does not govern the initiation or continuation of proceedings under Section 50A. The reference in Section 6 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 to the Code of Civil Procedure is for a limited purpose and does not prescribe the procedural law to be followed in such inquiries. The applicable procedure for the Small Cause Court is controlled by rules framed by the High Court under Section 9 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, not by the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the argument that civil procedure applies to Section 50A proceedings was rejected.

Conclusion: the Civil Procedure Code does not apply so as to cause abatement or bar belated substitution in proceedings under Section 50A.

Final Conclusion: the appeal failed because the Charity Commissioner's proceedings for settling a scheme could continue notwithstanding the death of one applicant, and the challenge based on civil abatement principles was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory proceeding intended to secure the proper administration of a public trust cannot be defeated by ordinary civil abatement rules where the governing provision confers independent, public-oriented power on the authority and the procedural reference does not import the Civil Procedure Code as controlling law.

---