1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR Second Appeal No.298 of 2010 (Eknath s/o. Shyamrao Sonale and Ors. vs. State and Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or judges Orders. CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: 26 /7/2010 Heard Mr. S.P.Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Mr.A.M.Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 3. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that, during the pendency of Regular Civil Suit No. 1177 of 1996, the Original defendant no.1 expired and on his death, the reliefs sought by the appellants/plaintiffs had been rendered infructuous. It is necessary to note that the plaintiffs had sought a declaration in the present suit that, as members of the Vidarbha Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti, Nagpur, they were entitled, as of a right, to enter the premises belonging to the Trust for the purpose of conducting their day-to-day activities and the defendants 2 did not have right, power or authority to prevent the plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons from exercising this right at any point of time in future. In the plaint, it was pleaded by the plaintiffs that, the defendant no.1, with the assistance of the defendant nos. 2 to 4, were obstructing the plaintiffs from entering the trust premises. The defendant nos. 2 to 4 are the State, the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur and the Police Inspector of Police Station at Sitabuldi, Nagpur. It does appear from a perusal of the plaint pleadings and the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs that the main grievance of the plaintiffs was against the defendant no.1 who was obstructing the plaintiffs from entering into the trust property allegedly with the help of defendant nos. 2 to 4. Mr.Deshpande, the Assistant Government Pleader, on the instructions from the In-charge, Police Station Officer at Police Station, Sitabuldi, makes a statement that defendant nos. 2 to 4 had never helped the defendant no.1 in obstructing the plaintiffs from entering the trust premises and they would also not, at any point of time, in future restrain the plaintiffs from entering in the trust premises, except by due process of law. In view of the statement made on behalf of the Original defendant nos. 2 to 4 and in view of the death of defendant no.1 during the pendency of the 3 proceedings, nothing survives in the litigation. It is, however, submitted on behalf of the appellants that the findings recorded by both the Courts on the applicability of the provisions of Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, in the facts of the case, will have to be set aside and the issue in that regard needs to be kept open. The learned Assistant Government Pleader states that there would be no problem in keeping the issue about the maintainability of such a suit in a Civil Court, open. It is rightly submitted on behalf of the appellants by the learned Senior Counsel that the Courts did not have jurisdiction to decide the issue as regards the membership of the appellants as the Courts had recorded a finding that they did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of absence of permission from the Charity Commission to institute the same under the provisions of Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. It is a well settled position of law that, once it is held by a Court of law that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain and decide a particular matter, the Court is not empowered to decide the other issues involved in the case. The finding recorded by both the Courts that the plaintiffs were not the members of the Trust in view of framing of new Scheme by the Charity Commissioner is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Even otherwise, the very same issue, is pending before the Deputy Charity 4 Commissioner, Nagpur and the said Authority would decide the same on merits. The finding recorded by both the Courts that the appellants are not the members of the Trust is, therefore, set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Second Appeal is disposed of in the afore-said terms with no order as to costs. JUDGE jais