Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. The revision petitioner – original defendant is taking exception to the order passed by the Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay on 01.07.2011 in Suit No. 1210 of 2011 holding that the Court does have jurisdiction to try and entertain the Suit.

3. The instant revision petition is presented by the original defendant in Suit No. 1210 of 2011. The original plaintiff No. 1 is Baun Foundation Trust (“said Trust” for short) which is a Public Charitable Trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (“BPT Act” for short). It is not disputed that the original plaintiff No.2 is the founder trustee of the said Trust as also the original plaintiff Nos. 3 to 5 are the trustees of the said Trust. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant was also the trustee of the said Trust until his term came to an end. The said Trust was formed in 1964 with an object to establish and run a hospital. The plaintiff No.2 and his wife late Smt. Shalini Shetty are amongst the founders of the said Trust. In the year 1990, additional trustees were taken in by the said Trust and those trustees are petitioner (defendant) and the plaintiff No.3 / respondent No.3. The defendant is son of plaintiff No.2 and Smt. Shalini Shetty. After inclusion of the additional trustees, a change was reported to the Charity Commissioner on 21.03.1990. According to the plaintiffs, as per the provisions contained in the Constitution of the said Trust, the trustees are to be appointed for the period of three years. It is also contended that there arose some dispute between the defendant and the other trustees and it is alleged that the defendant started interfering in the day-to-day affairs of the said Trust. It is also averred in the plaint that the term of the defendant came to an end on 21.03.2011, and thereupon, the remaining trustees of Trust recorded a decision not to renew the term of the defendant. Since, it is alleged, that the defendant was interfering in the administration of the said Trust, the Suit was presented by plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 claiming decree of injunction against him. It is also contended in the plaint itself that Suit is entertainable in the absence of prior sanction of Charity Commissioner as provided under Sections 50 and 51 of the BPT Act. The prayers made in the plaint, and more specifically, prayer clauses (a) and (b) are quoted below:

a. That the Defendant, his servants, agents, or any person or persons claiming by, under or through him be restrained by a permanent order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from threatening the Plaintiffs in any manner and be further restrained from entering upon and remaining in the premises situated at the Plaintiff No. 1's premises at Cumballa Hill Hospital 93-95, August Kranti Marg, Mumbai 400 036, the Plaintiff No.2 at his office at Cumballa Hill Hospital 93-95, August Kranti Marg, Mumbai 400 036 and his residence at 1-B, Manek, 11, L.D. Ruparel Marg, Mumbai- 400 006, the Plaintiff No.3 at her residence at Asha Mahal, 1st Floor, Flat No.6, Nowrojee Gamadia Road, Mumbai-400 026, her office at 107-109, Konark Shram, 156, M. M. Malviya Road, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 034 and also at her office at Messrs. Shalini Enterprises, Block No.5, Ground Floor, Mishree Mansion, August Kranti Marg, Mumbai 400 036, the Plaintiff No.4 at his residence at 33, Tenerife, Little Gibbs Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai 400 014 and the Plaintiff No.5 at his residence at 403/3 Radhakrishna Nagar, Malpa Hill No.3, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093;

b. That the Defendant be directed by a permanent mandatory order of injunction from interfering with and / or causing disturbance in day to day affairs of the Plaintiffs business and / or causing any harassment to the Plaintiffs and / or their staff members in the premises situated at the Plaintiff No. 1's premises at Cumballa Hill Hospital 93-95, August Kranti Marg, Mumbai 400 036, the Plaintiff No.2 at his office at Cumballa Hill Ho