11 ao 818.10.doc srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 818 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1026 OF 2010 The Bombay Diocesan Trust Association Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ....Appellants Versus Indian Bank ...Respondent Mr. V.V.Thorat i/b M/s. Shah Legal for Appellants Ms. Mable Soans, Lable & Associates for Respondent/Bank. Mr. V.P.Sawant for Intervenor. CORAM : R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED : 2ND AUGUST, 2010. P.C.: 1 This Appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai, refusing ad-interim relief to the Appellants whereby the Appellants sought an order to the Respondent-Bank that the Appellants should be permitted to operate the accounts in the Respondent-Bank. 2 Since disputes had been raised by the rival group of the Appellants and had informed the Respondent Bank that rival group 1 11 ao 818.10.doc had also passed resolutions nominating two persons, Lt. Col. Barla and another to operate the account, the Respondent-Bank informed the Appellants by letter dated 13th April, 2010 stating that the Respondent-Bank had stopped debit operations in the said account. This led to the filing of the suit and seeking an injunction. The learned counsel for the Appellants points out that even in the past in the year 1996 a similar suit was required to be filed and an injunction against the very same Bank is an operation. It is not necessary to make any observations about that injunction, since according to the Appellant the trust holds elections annually and therefore, the situation would change every year. Merely because a person was holding the office since 1994 it does not follow that he would automatically continue to hold the office in subsequent years. The dispute in facts squarely lies within the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioner. It is about matters pertaining to trust, though a colour is sought to be given that it is a dispute between the Bank and its customer. In fact, the Appellants seems to have approached the District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum also in respect of accounts with Vijaya Bank and have received favourable orders from the Forum on 13th April, 2010. The order passed by the Forum also shows that the Bank account could be operated for the limited purpose of payment of salary of staff, electricity bills, telephone bills, municipal taxes only. Therefore, it is not that the Forum had permitted wholesale operation of the account 2 11 ao 818.10.doc since the dispute as to who are the trustees would be properly resolved only by the Charity Commissioner. In view of this, it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge erred in refusing ad interim relief. The learned trial Judge may hear the Notice of Motion on merits as early as possible and decide it within a period of two weeks. The learned counsel for the Appellants expresses her apprehension that people may seek to join the plaint as intervenors or parties and then Chamber Summonses may be taken out and the matter may drag on. The learned Judge would bear in mind that it is for the plaintiff to decide as to who should be the parties in the suit unless somebody is a necessary party and is not joined. In that case, it is not necessary to allow Application for intervention, but it would for the Plaintiff to see that necessary parties are joined and if the Plaintiff does not do so the Plaintiff suffers. The Plaintiff is the master of the suit and therefore, the learned Judge should not allow his attention to be detracted from the issue which is before him and which has been raised in the Notice of Motion and decide the Notice of Motion as early as possible and preferably within two weeks. 3 Appeal from Order along with the Civil Application stand disposed of accordingly. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.) 3