: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1191 OF 2009 Ram Naraindas Vaswani ... Appellant V/s. Pritamdas Sewadhari & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.U.J. Makhija i/b Amin Kherada for Appellant Mr.R.R. Varma i/b A.M. Saraogi for Respondent No.1 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: JANUARY 19, 2010 P.C.: 1. Mr.Makhija appearing for the appellant seeks to delete the name of Respondent No.2. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. The appeal has been filed against the order passed by the trial Court on 4.9.2009 by which the notice of motion filed has been dismissed with costs. The notice of motion was filed by the plaintiff praying that the suit pending before the city civil court should be stayed till the final disposal of the application No.ACC/III/3056 of 2008 filed by it before the Deputy Charity Commissioner for registration of the Trust. It is contended that out of the issues framed by the trial Court, the first issue as to whether the suit property is a trust property or not and whether the plaintiff and defendant No.2 are trustees can be decided only by the Charity Commissioner. : 2 : Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mrs.Jankibai Prahladrai Brijlal Seksaria v. Kashinath Raghunath Kelkar & Ors., AIR 1972 BOM 199. 3. The trial Court has refused to stay the suit on the ground that it would only mean that the plaintiff is adopting dilatory tactics. In my view, the question as to whether the property which is in dispute and over which the plaintiff claims that the defendant No.1 has encroached is a trust property or not can be decided only by the Charity Commissioner. Undisputedly the aforesaid application is pending before the Charity Commissioner for registration of the Trust. Once that application is decided and the trust is registered the issue whether the suit property is trust property or not could be then decided by the Charity Commissioner. Therefore, it would be appropriate to stay the suit. 4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the Notice of Motion No.814 of 2009 is made absolute. 5. The learned advocate for respondent No.1 seeks stay of this order. Stay refused.