MP 1 AO969_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEL FROM ORDER NO. 969 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1194 OF 2011 IN S.C. SUIT NO. 1210 OF 2011 Mr. Vijay Raghurama Shetty ... Applicant Versus Baun Foundation Trust and others ... Respondents Mr. Navroz Seervai, Senior Counsel with Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhkoni, Senior Counsel and Mr. Z. Andhyaruzina, Advocate with Mr. Amit Vyas, Advocate and Mr. Sanjay Israni, Advocate with Mr. S. Singh and Ms. Nikita Ajwani with Mr. Melvyn Fernandes, Advocates i/b. M/s. Rajani Associates for the Applicant. Mr. D. D. Madon, Senior Counsel with Mr. Ravi Gandhi, Advocate i/b. M/s. Kanga & Co. for Respondents. CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2011 P.C.: Original defendant is taking exception to the order passed by the Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay on 04.08.2011 in Notice of Motion No. 1194 of 2011 in S. C. Suit No. 1210 of 2011. The Trial Court passed the following order while allowing the Notice of Motion: “1. N/M. No. 1194/11 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) & (b). 2. Pending and hearing and final disposal of the suit, defendant, his servants, agents, or any person or persons claiming by under or through him are hereby restrained by an order of injunction from threatening the plaintiffs in any manner and entering upon and remaining in the premises of plaintiff no.1 and office of plaintiff no.2 both situated at Cumball Hill Hospital 93-95, August Kranti Marg, Mumbai-36, at the residence of plaintiff no.2 at 1-B Manek, 11, L.D.Ruparel Marg, Mumbai 400 006, plaintiff no.3 at her residence at Asha Mahal, 1st floor, flat no.6, Nowrojee Gamadia Road, Mumbai-26, her office at 107-109, Konark Shram, 156, M.M.Malviya Road, Tardeo, Mumbai 34 and also at her office at Messrs. Shalini Enterprises, Block No.5, Ground Floor, MP 2 AO969_11 Mishri Mansion, August Kranti Marg, Mumbai-36, plaintiff no.4 at his residence at 33, Tenerife, Little Gibbs Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai-14 and the plaintiff no.5 at his residence at 403/3 Radhakrishna Nagar, Malpa Hill No.3, Andheri (East), Mumbai-93. 3. Defendant is hereby further restrained from interfering with and / or causing disturbance in day to day affairs of the plaintiff's business and / or causing any harassment to the plaintiffs and / or their staff members in the premises situated at plaintiff no.1's premises at Cumball Hill Hospital 93-95, August Kranti Marg, Mumbai-36, at the residence of plaintiff no.2 at 1-B Manek, 11, L.D.Ruparel Marg, Mumbai 400 006, plaintiff no.3 at her residence at Asha Mahal, 1st floor, flat no.6, Nowrojee Gamadia Road, Mumbai-26, her office at 107-109, Konark Shram, 156, M.M.Malviya Road, Tardeo, Mumbai 34 and also at her office at Messrs. Shalini Enterprises, Block No.5, Ground Floor, Mishri Mansion, August Kranti Marg, Mumbai-36, plaintiff no.4 at his residence at 33, Tenerife, Little Gibbs Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai-14 and the plaintiff no.5 at his residence at 403/3 Radhakrishna Nagar, Malpa Hill No.3, Andheri (East), Mumbai-93. 4. No order as to costs. 5. Applications Ex-4 and 5 are hereby rejected. 6. N/M and Ex-4 and 5 stand disposed of accordingly.” 2. The original defendant by tendering an application at exhibit-2 objected to entertainability of the Suit and jurisdiction of the Civil Court to deal with the issues involved in the Suit. It was the contention of the defendant that the Suit in the present form is not entertainable without securing prior permission of the Charity Commissioner as contemplated by Section 51 of the Bombay Public Trust Act (“BPT Act” for short). He also contended that there is a bar prescribed under Section 51 of the BPT Act. The Trial Court dealt with the issue of its own jurisdiction and recorded a finding on 01.07.2011 holding that the Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. Consequent upon the decision rendered by the Trial Court, the Notice of Motion seeking an interim order was taken up for consideration and the above referred order came to be passed. Today, I have decided the Civil Revision Application presented by the original defendant raising exception to the order passed by the Trial MP 3 AO969_11 Court in respect of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit. The Civil Revision Application came to be allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court to render decision afresh in accordance with the provisions of law. The issue of jurisdiction is required to be dealt with by the Civil Court once again. The interim order passed in the Notice of Motion is operative since 04.08.2011. In my opinion, the order can be continued for the further period of ten days with a direction to the Trial Court to decide the permissibility of the continuation of the interim order beyond the period of ten days. The Trial Court is directed to decide the permissibility of granting / extending the interim relief beyond the period of ten days on its own merits and without being influenced by the observations made by this Court. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the defendant vehemently opposes the continuation of the interim order contending that the ad-interim was not granted by the Trial Court during pendency of Notice of Motion. However, according to me, the final order passed by the Court on 04.08.2011 is operative since more than a month and that can remain operative for ten days hereafter. 4. As observed specifically above, the learned Judge of the Trial Court who shall be dealing with the issue of grant / extension of interim relief shall render decision on its own merits and without being influenced by order of continuation of interim relief granted by this Court in the instant Appeal from Order. An apprehension is expressed by the defendant that the appellants (original plaintiffs) are likely to dispose of the property of the Trust. It is hereby ordered that the trustees of the Trust shall not take any policy decision during the intervening period of ten days relating to the property of the Trust in any manner. 5. Appeal from Order stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (R.M. BORDE, J)