1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.658 OF 2008 Deccan Education Society (Regd) : Applicants/ Gulbarga-04, Karnataka & Anrs. : Petitioners. versus Deccan Education Society, Pune through its Trustee & Secretary : Respondent. Shri. Firoz Ansari for the Petitioners. Shri R.S.Apte i/by Mr.M.V.Limaye for the Respondent. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : JANUARY 21, 2009 P.C. 1. The above Civil Revision Application is directed against the order dated 2/8/2008 passed by the learned District Judge-7, Pune by which order the Applications Exhibit-15 and Exhibit-18 filed by the Petitioners above named came to be rejected. 2. The Petitioners are the original Defendants in Regular Civil 2 Suit No.5 of 2008 filed by the Respondent herein under the Trade Mark Acts 1999. In the said suit, the Petitioners had filed the said two Applications Exhibit 15 and Exhibit 18. In so far as Application Exhibit-15 is concerned, the Petitioners have filed the same contending that the said suit as filed by the Respondent herein is not maintainable on account of non-joinder of the Charity Commissioner as a party to the said Suit. In so far as Application Exhibit-18 is concerned, the Petitioners have filed the same contending that the said suit as filed by the Respondent is bad on account of the fact that the permission of the Charity Commissioner under Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 has not been obtained. 3. Both the said Applications were considered by the trial Court and by the impugned order the said Applications came to be rejected. In so far as Application Exhibit-15 is concerned, the trial Court in view of Section 56 B of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 came to a conclusion that since the said suit does not involve any question of religious or charitable purpose, the impleadment of the Charity Commissioner as a party to the said Suit was not necessary. 3 4. In so far as Application Exhibit 18 is concerned, the trial Court was of the view that since the Respondent has filed the said Suit alleging infringement of the Trade Mark, permission of the Charity Commissioner to file the said Suit was not required. The trial Court relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (Supp) Bom.C.R.670 in the matter of Surayya Afzal Khan v/s Raza Shah Fakir Takiya in which judgment this Court has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court to hold that there is no specific bar created either under Section 50 or 51 of the Bombay Public Trust Act to file a suit without permission of the Charity Commissioner. The trial Court, therefore, rejected the said Application Exhibit-18. 5. A greivance was also made that the said suit has been filed by only one trustee. The said issue has also been dealt with by the trial Court. The trial Court taking into consideration the provisions of Soceity Registration Act 1860 as also the provisions of the Bombay Publict Trust Act and also taking into consideration the fact that the Plaintiff No.2 is the only surviving trustee and since the secretary of 4 the trust has also been impleaded as a Plaintiff did not find any merit in the said grievance of the Petitioners. 6. Having considered the order passed by the trial Court, in my view, the Petitioners have made out no ground for interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. The above Civil Revision Application is accordingly rejected. [R.M.SAVANT, J]