1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 335 OF 2007 Mohammad Hanif Khadir Patil & Ors. .....Applicants Versus Shri Masuddev Trust Bastawad Masjid (Dev) Bastawad through its Trustees & Ors. .....Respondents. Mr. P. M. Arjunwadkar for the Applicants Mr. V. S. Gokhale for Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d). Mr. V. B. Rajure for Respondent No.6. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 9th JULY, 2009. P.C.: Heard, Mr. Arjunwadkar, learned Counsel for the Applicants, Mr. Gokhale and Mr. Rajure, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) and 6, respectively. 2. The Applicants are original defendants. A suit was filed by the Respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(d)/Original Plaintiffs for possession and mesne profits of the suit property in the year 1996. At the instance of the Applicants, an issue regarding jurisdiction was framed and the same was treated as Preliminary Issue. By the order impugned in the present revision, the Court answered the Preliminary Issue in affirmative and consequently held that the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. 3. The objection to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was raised on two counts viz. permission under section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, is not obtained prior to filing of the suit and secondly, in view of the provisions of section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the suit ought to have been filed in the District Court. 2 4. Both the objections are devoid of any merit. So far as the permission under section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act is concerned, it is a settled law that the said permission is not required, if the suit is for possession of the property belonging to the trust from tresspassers. I am fortified by the judgments of Shri Bhairavanath Devasthan trust & ors. Vs. Bajaba Nathu Pathare & Ors. reported in 1999(3) ALL MR 479 and Leelavati w/o. Vasantrao Pingle & Anr. Vs. Dattatraya Dhondiraji Kavishar & Ors. reported in 1988 (2) Bom.C.R. 429. In the present case, the Respondent No.1 in paragraph no.9 of the plaint in Special Civil Suit No.149 of 1996 stated that in the month of January, 1996 they had asked possession from the Applicants. However, the Applicants refused to deliver the possession and therefore, they were constrained to file the present suit. The Applicants could not show any provisions of law or circumstances under which they are entitled to remain in possession of the suit land. Thus, after January, 1996, the possession of the Applicants becomes illegal and therefore, in my view, the present suit is perfectly maintainable without obtaining permission under section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, from the Charity Commissioner. 5. In view of the provision of sub-section 1 of Section 52 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, provisions of section 92 and 93 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are not applicable to the Public Trusts. The second objection is thus misconceived. 6. Be that as it may, the Respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(d)/Original Plaintiffs filed the present suit in the year 1996. Pleadings are already completed and the present Applicants applied for framing of preliminary issues only after the evidence is started. After passing of the impugned order, recording of evidence is almost complete. Taking totality of circumstances into consideration, I am not inclined to interfere in the revision in exercise of my jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Civil Revision Application is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (R. V. MORE, J.)