1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.2491 of 2008 Taekwondo Association of Thane and anr. Petitioners Vs. Mr.Nilesh Ashok Jalnawala & anr. Respondents Ms.Sumedha Rao for petitioners. Mr.C.L.Joshi for resp.no.1. Mr.P.I.Khemani, AGP for resp.no.2. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. April 10, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard Ms.Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners. This petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Vashi on 18/3/2008 thereby rejecting an application filed under Section 9A of CPC in Regular Civil Suit No.300 of 2007. 2. The present petitioners, who are the 2 defendants in the said suit, raised an objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Court below to entertain and try the suit and mainly on the ground that the plaintiff as well as the defendants are located in Navi Mumbai, Dist.Thane and, therefore, the suit filed in the Court at Vashi was not maintainable. It was further submitted that the order dated 15/1/2007 which was the subject matter of challenge in the suit was issued by the defendant no.2 from Taekwondo Association,Thane District and the day-to-day functions of the Association take place at its registered office at Thane. 3. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff and in the impugned order the Trial Court referred to the order dated 15/1/2007 which was the subject matter of challenge in the suit and noted that the cause of action to issue the said order had taken place at Vashi and, therefore, in view of Section 20(c) of CPC the suit was maintainable. Ms.Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before me a copy of the order dated 15/1/2007 and a perusal of the same indicates that the cause of action to issue the order arose allegedly on account of the practical training sessions held by the 3 plaintiff on 5/11/2004 at Vishnudas Bhave Natya Gruha, Vashi and similar session conducted by him on 14/11/2004 at the same place. Hence no fault could be found with the view taken by the trial Court. 4. Ms.Rao referred to the scheme of Section 50(iv) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and pointed out that for any declaration and injunction against a public trust, the aggrieved person may institute, whether contentious or not, a suit in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or part of the subject matter of the trust is situated, to obtain a decree for any of the reliefs mentioned in Clauses (a) to (q). It was, therefore, submitted by Ms.Rao that when it comes to the scheme of Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, the cause of action for the order passed on 15/1/2007 is not relevant and what is relevant is the location of the Trust and, therefore, she submitted that the suit filed in the Court at Vashi was not maintainable. There is no doubt that such a pleading has been raised for the first time in this petition and, therefore, it cannot be considered. The petitioner will have a remedy of approaching the trial Court with a fresh application. 4 5. Hence the petition is rejected summarily with liberty to the petitioners as may be available in law. (B.H.MARL