1. The present Appeal from Order filed by the original Plaintiffs as the learned Judge, of City Civil Court, Mumbai by order dated 21 August 2013 on the ground of jurisdiction, returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) by holding that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of specific provisions under Section 80 read with Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (BPT Act).

2. The Plaintiffs-Appellants, persons interested, have filed the Suits for various reliefs stating it to be against the members/elected trustees of Respondent No.3-Trust. There is no averment in the plaint that they are holding any post and/or they are the office bearer of the Trust on the date of filing of the suit.

3. The learned Judge has considered the averments as made in the plaint and after analyzing it, discussed in paras 9 and 10 as under:

“9. Plaintiffs in their suit came with the statements that subject matter of the suit lies within the domain of the charity commissioner but they have come before the court as the charity commissioner is not taking any action. In prayer clause (a) of the plaint itself plaintiffs seek declaration that the activities of defendant no.1 in connivance with his associates which he is carrying out because of the inaction on the part of the charity commissioner be declared illegal. In para 9 of the plaint plaintiff made a statement that the charity commissioner is not at all interested though the charity commissioner is the authority to remove illegality or defects but the charity commissioner is reluctant to look into the affairs of the trust. It is further mentioned that defendant no.1 is acting contrary to the constitution of the trust and charity commissioner is not interested in solving the problems of the trusts. Plaintiffs further mentioned that as they did not get relief from the charity commissioner hence they are forced to approached civil court to protect the interest of the trust and its members. This, whole statement in the plaint, thus, reveals that plaintiffs themselves are aware that it is a charity commissioner who is the authority to give directions in respect of the activities of the trust and make orders regarding protection of the property of the trust. These statements also show that as per plaintiffs suit is for regulating activities of the trust and for protection of properties of the trust.

10. Section 41A of the Act defines Power of Commissioner to issue directions regarding proper administration of the trust. As per this provision the charity commissioner may from time to time issue directions to any trustee of a public trust or any person connected therewith, to ensure that the trust is properly administered. The charity commissioner may also give directions to the trustees or such person, if he finds that any property of the trust is in danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated or wrongfully sold, removed or disposed of. The suit of plaintiffs is to prohibit the so-called illegal activities of defendant no.1 which are detrimental to the proper administration of the trust. Plaintiffs are seeking reliefs to restrain defendant no.1 from putting in danger the property of the trust or damaging the property of the trust details of which are mentioned by him in the foregoing paragraphs. The reliefs claimed by plaintiffs in different notices of motion are also to seek directions regarding restrainment of defendant no.1 from holding meetings or interfering in the meeting are the reliefs in respect of administration of the trust. The suit is, thus, squarely in respect of power of charity commissioner under Section 41A of the act. Once this conclusion is drawn then the suit becomes a suit in respect of question which is by or under the Act is to be decided or dealt with by the charity commissioner under section 41A of the Act. Thus, bar under section 80 of the Act is attracted.”

4. The order therefore, in my view, in view of a