A suit challenging expulsion from Trust membership requires prior consent from the Charity Commissioner; failure to secure this consent renders the suit barred under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.

P.C :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1) The Applicant has invoked revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) for setting up a challenge to the order dated 24 July 2017 passed by the 3^rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune rejecting the application filed by the Applicant/Defendant No.1 seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.

2) Applicant is a Trust registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (MPT Act). Respondent Nos.1 to 4, who claim to be life members of the Trust, are the original Plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No. 383 of 2017, who have have challenged Resolution dated 4 March 2017 adopted by the Governing Council of the Trust, as well as, Resolution dated 5 March 2017 adopted in the General Body Meeting expelling them from the position of life membership. Plaintiffs have also prayed for mandatory injunction for their reinstatement as life members of the Trust. Plaintiffs have also sought damages from the Defendants. Defendant No.3, for himself and on behalf of Defendant No.1-Trust, filed application at Exhibit-19 seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code on twin grounds of the Suit not disclosing the cause of action and the suit being barred by provisions of Sections 50 , 51 and 80 of the MPT Act. The application was resisted by the Plaintiffs by filing Affidavit-in-Reply. By impugned order dated 24 July 2017, the Trial Court has proceeded to reject the application holding inter alia that the Plaintiffs are merely trying to enforce and protect their civil rights unconnected with the provisions of Section 50 of the MPT Act. Aggrieved by order dated 24 July 2017, the Applicant-Trust has filed the present Civil Revision Application.

3) I have heard Mr. Bhargude, the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, who would submit that the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application of the Applicant seeking rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. He would submit that the prayers sought by the Plaintiff in the Suit challenging their expulsion would clearly be covered by the ambit of Section 50 of the MPT Act. In support of his contention, he would rely upon judgment of this Court in Rajesh Chunilal Meghani Versus. Andheri Recreation Club and Ors. , 2017 (4) Bom CR 855 . He would submit that in absence of consent of Charity Commissioner under Section 51 of the MPT Act, the Suit is clearly barred. He would further submit that the Trial Court has erred in holding that the Suit is filed for enforcement of civil rights of the Plaintiff, ignoring the position that what is actually sought is declaration of validity of membership. He would submit that the Suit is clearly barred by the provisions of Section 80 of the MPT Act. He would pray for setting aside the impugned order and for rejection of plaint in the Suit.

4) Mr. Gorwadkar, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 4/Original Plaintiffs would oppose the Revision Application. He would submit that the Revision Application filed at the behest of the Applicant-Trust is not maintainable. He would submit that the Plaintiffs have not sought any prayer against the Trust in the Suit and that the prayers in the Suit are directed against the Defendants in their capacity as Trustees. That it is a well-settled position that in a suit filed by/or against the Trust, all trustees must join together and it is impermissible for the Trust to sue or file proceedings in its individual capacity. That Trust is not a juristic person. He would accordingly submit that the application filed