JUDGMENT :

1. This Revision Application has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code” for short), in which, the applicant – original defendant has challenged the order dated 27.09.2020 passed by the learned 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nadiad, below application Exh.52 filed in Regular Civil Suit No.153 of 2007.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Mrugen Purohit for the applicant and learned advocate Mr.Hemang Parikh for the respondents caveators.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Purohit appearing for the applicant submitted that the present respondents – plaintiffs have filed Regular Civil Suit No.153 of 2007 for declaration and for possession of the suit property and prayed that the defendant is enjoying the suit property by virtue of leave and licence right and has also prayed to direct the defendant to handover the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff Trust. It is also prayed that the declaration be given that the defendant had no right to do seva puja as Pujari in the temple as his right to do puja has been cancelled by passing resolution. Learned advocate for the applicant has referred the plaint, a copy of which is placed on record at Page- 21 of the compilation. It is submitted that the applicant – defendant appeared in the suit and filed written statement vide Exh.15 and raised various contentions. Thereafter, the applicant – defendant filed application Exh.52 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code and prayed that the plaint filed by the plaintiffs be rejected. It is submitted that by way of the impugned order dated 27.09.2020, the concerned trial Court has rejected the said application and, therefore, the present applicant has filed this Revision Application.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Purohit has mainly contended that the suit property belongs to “Shri Vishwakarma Temple and Public Charitable Trust”. It is submitted that the said Trust is registered as Public Trust. It is submitted that as the suit property belongs to the public Trust, the plaintiffs have to obtain prior permission of the Charity Commissioner under Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (“the Act” for short) before filing of the suit. It is also contended that the plaintiffs have not joined the Charity Commissioner as party defendant in the suit. It is, therefore, urged that filing of the suit is barred by law and, therefore, the concerned Civil Court ought to have rejected the plaint filed by the original plaintiffs. Learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case Sainath Mandir Trust Vs. Vijaya and ors., reported in AIR 2011 SC 389. Learned advocate has more particularly placed reliance upon the observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court in Paragraphs-18 and 19 of the said decision. Learned advocate, therefore, urged that this application be allowed and, thereby, the plaint filed by the plaintiffs be rejected.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Parikh appearing for the respondents – caveators has opposed this application. Learned advocate has referred the impugned order passed by the concerned Civil Court and, thereafter, contended that prior permission of the Charity Commissioner under Section 50 of the Act is not required at the time of filing of the suit in the facts of the present case. Learned advocate Mr.Parikh has placed reliance upon the following decisions:

(1) Malek Chittu Rasul vs. Pathan Mahmadkhan Kalukhan reported in 1966 GLR 1011

(2) Nadiad Nagarpalika, Nadiad vs. Vithalbhai Zaverbhai Patel reported in 1980 GLR 792

(3) Trustees of Hareshwar Mahadev Trust vs. Trustees of Shri Jasvantsinhji Audichya Brahman Boarding Vidarthibhavan & Ors. reported in 1998(1) GLH 127

(4) The Trust of Shri Laxmi Narayan Dev Temple & Its Subordinate Temple & Others vs. Ajendraprasadji Narendraprasadji Pande & Anr. reported in 2013 (2) GLH 559

Learned advocate has, therefore, urged that this application be dismissed.

6. Having heard learn