1 wp 2148.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2148 OF 2011 Somwanshiya Kshatriya Kasar & ors .. Petitioners Versus M/s Sable Waghire and Co. Pvt. Ltd. GPA Holder Shivaji Yadvrao Inamdar and others .. Respondents Shri U. S. Malte, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri V. S. Bedre, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 20TH JUNE, 2011. PER COURT : . The present respondent No. 1 had instituted a suit against the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent Nos. 2 to 12 for directions against the defendants therein that the petitioners be allowed to carry out repairs of the suit premises with other allied reliefs. During the pendency of suit the present petitioners moved an application for adding new trustees as parties and deleting the old trustees. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. 2 wp 2148.11 2. Shri Malte, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that taking into consideration the nature of the dispute the new trustees are necessary parties. The property is vested in the trustees and as such the new trustees or elected trustees are necessary parties. The old trustees would not be interested for protecting the interest of the trust and as such if any decree is passed that would be prejudicial to the interest of new trustees. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Shaikh Abdul Kayum and others vs. Mulla Alibhai and others reported in AIR 1963 S. C. 309 to substantiate his contention that the duties and functions cannot be delegated. According to him the trust also is not a party as can be seen from the recitals of the cause title describing the defendants. 3. Shri Bedre, the learned counsel for plaintiff submits that the defendant No. 1 is a trust. Whenever the new trustees are elected, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to add them as parties. 4. The suit is filed against the trust. The defendant No. 1 is a trust. Even this fact is seen from the application Exhibit 120 filed by the petitioners. In para 1 it has been stated that the 3 wp 2148.11 defendant No. 1 is a trust and defendant Nos. 2 to 12 had appeared and filed the written statement and as change has taken place, the new trustees are looking after the day today affairs of the defendant No. 1/Trust. As such, there cannot be any dispute about the fact that the defendant No. 1 is a trust. 5. Whether to add new trustees or not is choice of the plaintiff. Plaintiff is dominus litis of his case. At the same time the trust would be represented by a competent person and if new trustees are appointed or the trust by resolution authorize some new person to represent the trust, then said new persons can represent the trust. But if the plaintiff does not chose to add new trustees as party, the plaintiff does so at his own peril. 6. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the old trustees may not look after the matter diligently is also improper, in view of the fact that the trust is capable of being represented by a competent person whom even new trustees can appoint. The judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Shaikh Abdul Kayum and others referred supra may not be of assistance to the petitioners in as much as the same deals with the powers of delegation by the trustees, wherein it is laid 4 wp 2148.11 down that the trustees cannot delegate their function. In the present matter, the same is not an issue in controversy. 7. In the light of above facts, I do not see any error committed by the Court below in passing the impugned order. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. The question of jurisdiction raised is not a subject matter of the impugned order and so is not being considered. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/June 11