1. The applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court by which the objection raised by it regarding the maintainability of the suit and the jurisdiction of the Court was rejected. The impugned order has been passed on 16.7.2008 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Manmad City.

2. Regular Civil Suit No.23 of 2008 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for a perpetual injunction and for a declaration. An application for interim relief by way of temporary injunction was also preferred by the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that in the year 1971, he had permitted the applicant/defendant trust to use his land admeasuring 4 ares. According to the plaintiff this land was part of his ancestral land and he had permitted the trust to use the land because of the good work carried on by the trust for the farmers’ benefit. The applicant constructed a godown on this plot of land which was being used by the agriculturists for storing agricultural produce. It appears that the farmers discontinued using the godown for storing agricultural produce and on the request of the plaintiff one of the trustees returned the land to the plaintiff alongwith the godown standing thereon. The plaintiff then found that the trustees were obstructing his possession of the suit property and therefore apprehending that he would be dispossessed the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit in June 2008.

3. The applicant trust defended the suit and contended that the suit was not maintainable and that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions of sections 50, 51 and 80 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. Preliminary issues were framed on the application made by the applicant trust u/s 9A of the CPC. These issues were answered in favour of the respondent-defendant and hence, the present civil revision application.

4. The leaned counsel appearing for the applicant – trust submits that the provisions of section 50 clearly mandate that before a suit can be filed in a civil Court against the public trust, the permission of the Charity Commissioner must be obtained. He submits that no suit by or against or relating to public trusts can be instituted before a Civil Court unless such sanction is granted by the Commissioner. The learned Counsel further points out that u/s 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, civil suits are barred in respect of any issue which can be decided or dealt with by an officer or competent authority under the Public Trusts Act. He points out that in the present case, no sanction has been applied for and, therefore, not obtained from the Charity Commissioner for instituting the suit against the trust. Reliance is placed by the learned Counsel on the judgment in the case of Mahibubi Abdul Aziz vs. Sayed Abdul Majid, 2001(3) Bom.C.R. 33. He also points out the judgment in the case of Virupakshayya Shakarayya vs. Neelakanta Shivacharya Patttadadevaru, AIR 1995 SC 2187 and in the case of Yasinmian Amirmian Faroqui & Ors. v. I.A. Shaikh & Ors., 1977 GUJARAT LAW REPORTER Vol.XVIII 54.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the issue as to whether a person who has no connection with the Trust can file a civil suit without obtaining permission from the Charity Commissioner is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sainath Mandir Trust, Amravati v. Vijaya w/o. Vithalrao Mandale & Ors., 2003(4) Mh.L.J. 187. He submits that a person, not being interested in the trust, who agitates his civil rights against the trust need not seek the sanction of the Charity Commissioner prior to filing of a suit. He also relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vinayaka Dev, Idagunji vs. Shivaram, (2005) 6 SCC 641. The learned advocate further points out that the bar of section 80 would not operate in the present case as the respondent is not a person interested in the trust and he is merely ensuring that his civil rights are no