1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4886 OF 2011 Lilawati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust & Another ...Petitioners Versus Charu Kishor Mehta & Others ...Respondents Mr.S.U.Kamdar, Sr. Counsel a/w. D.K.Sinha & Jay Kansara i/b. Vidhi Partners for the Petitioners Mr.Karl Tamboly, Firoz Bharucha i/b. Parag Sharma for the Respondent No.1 Mr.Santosh Bharicha i/b. Prashant Goyal for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 Mr.Sanjay Jain with Durgesh Singh and Gayatri Athare Patil for the Respondent No.2 CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 29th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. The respondent no.1 has filed Short Cause Suit No.363 of 2011 in the City Civil Court at Mumbai. The suit is directed against a practicing Advocate and reliefs are sought against him. Two persons by name Rajiv and Prashant have been joined as defendants in their capacity as trustees. It is noticed that Chetan Mehta filed Chamber 2 Summons No.291 of 2011 for the trust and for himself to join as many as 8 persons, as trustees in the suit, starting from Prabodh Mehta upto Nanik Rupani. That Chamber Summons came to be dismissed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court on 15.6.2011. Being aggrieved by the said order, this petition is filed. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, petition was taken up for hearing. Hence rule is granted. It is made returnable forthwith. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 waives service. By consent petition is taken up for hearing. 3. A perusal of the plaint indicates that the aforesaid suit No.363 of 2011 is filed for the benefit of the trust. In such a case it is necessary that all persons who are the trustees in respect of the trust are required to be joined as party defendants. It appears that respondent no.1 is contesting the status of the persons who are sought to be joined as trustees. Prima facie case is made out to show that the persons who are sought to be joined as defendants are trustees and their presence in the suit is required. 3 4. A perusal of the plaint would go to show that the presence of all the persons who are said to be trustees is required so that the suit can be decided in proper manner. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court has arrived at conclusions which can’t be accepted. He has observed that because the suit is not between the trust and other trustees and it is suit between one of the trustees against an Advocate the presence of other trustees is not required. I am not inclined to accept this view of the learned trial Judge. It is apparent that the respondent no.1 claims to be permanent trustee and he has filed a suit so as to protect the interest of the trust. In such a case, the persons who claim themselves to be trustees are required to be joined so that they will have a say in the matter. 5. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, following order is passed . ORDER i) The impugned order dated 15.6.2011 passed below Chamber Summons No.291 of 2011 is set aside. The chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). ii) The respondent no.1 shall carry out the amendment on or 4 before 13.10.2011 and serve upon the added defendants copy of the plaint and such other papers concerning the aforesaid Suit No.363 of 2011 within 10 days from carrying out the amendment. Iii) There shall be no order as to costs. iv) After the aforesaid order is passed, learned Advocate for the respondent no.1 submitted that the respondent no.1 is interested in applying to the learned Judge of the City Civil Court for ad-interim reliefs in the Notice of Motion which is taken out in the main suit. He submitted that this Court should permit the respondent no.1 to make such application. v) It will be open for the respondent no.1 to move the learned Judge for ad-interim reliefs and that the said application should be heard and disposed of by the learned Judge on merits. The observations in this order shall not be used by the learned Judge against any of the parties to the present petition. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)