1. The plaintiffs, who are trust members have been suspended from their membership, which suspension they have challenged in the first suit. The plaintiffs, who are ordinary trustees of plaintiff No.1 trust in the second suit pursuant to they being trust members have, under an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) constituted by them under the provisions of the constitution of plaintiff No.1 trust in the second suit removed the defendants as members of the Managing Committee of the suit trust and suspended them as members of the trust and appointed the plaintiffs in the second suit as members of the managing committee which the plaintiffs in the second suit seek to enforce by an injunction against the defendants from trespassing on the property of the trust as managing committee members, holding themselves as members of the managing committee/trustees of the trust and preventing the plaintiffs from carrying out their duties and from acting as the managing committee of the first plaintiff trust in the second suit.

2. Aside from challenging their suspension in the first suit and applying for the aforesaid injunctions in the second suit the plaintiffs have sued for damages in both the suits. The plaintiffs claim compensatory damages for mental and physical harassment in the first suit and the plaintiff trust has claimed damages for the loss caused to the trust upon the defendants illegally acting as the managing committee of the trust in the second suit.

3. The plaintiffs took out notices of motion in both the suits for interim reliefs. In the first suit the notice of motion is for restraining the defendants from acting upon the suspension order upon the grounds that the suspension order is illegal and void it having been passed by the managing committee which was itself not validly constituted and also upon the ground that the suspension was in contravention of principles of natural justice and against the constitution and the byelaws of the suit trust. In the notice of motion taken out in the second suit the plaintiffs have applied for various interim reliefs of mandatory as also prohibitory injunctions upon the premise that the defendants were ineligible to be members of the managing committee, they being only ordinary members and not trust members who alone could form a managing committee and for specific directions against the defendants in such capacity as also restraining them from obstructing the plaintiffs from carrying on their functions on the new managing committee pursuant to being appointed as members of the managing committee in the EGM convened and held by the requisite number of members including the plaintiffs.

4. The defendants have raised the plea of the lack of this Court's inherent jurisdiction upon it being impliedly barred under Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (BPT Act) and also on the ground that the first suit is filed for declaration and the second suit for injunction by the public trust or the plaintiffs as ordinary trustees against the defendants who also claim to be ordinary trustees for reliefs under clauses (b), (c), (d) & (p) of Section 50 (iv) of the BPT Act without consent of the Charity Commissioner as mandated under Section 51 of the BPT Act. The defendants also contend that the Bombay City Civil Court alone would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit pertaining to the BPT Act.

5. In the first suit under the order dated 17th January, 2014 of this Court the preliminary issue came to be framed. An identical issue is required to be framed in the second suit.

6. The preliminary issue in both the suits is framed and answered as follows:

1. Whether the suit, as framed, is barred by reason of the provisions of Section 2(4), 50, 51 and 80 of the BPT Act, 1950.

7. By the ad-interim order dated 17th January, 2014 the suspension of the plaintiffs in the first suit has been stayed pending the hearing of the notice of motion. The plaintiffs are permitted to use the club faci