VIDARBHA YOUTH WELFARE SOCIETY Vs. SANDIP RAM MEGHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by order dated 01.08.2015 passed by 8th Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division, Amravati below Exh.22 in Regular Civil Suit No.178/2015, by which the learned trial Judge held that it has jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit and consequently rejected the objection as to the jurisdiction raised by the revision-applicants, the present Civil Revision Application has been filed.

(2.) In support of this revision application, Mr. Bhuibhar, learned Counsel for the revision applicants vehemently argued that the body of the suit plaint, averments as well as prayers and the reliefs claimed in the suit filed by the non applicants in the matter of removal of the members from the society of the trust are the matters falling under Section 50 (1) (iv) (p) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act (for the sake of brevity "Act") and consequently in the absence of consent obtained under Section 51 of the said Act and in view of the bar under Section 80 thereof, the suit was clearly not maintainable and was required to be dismissed. Mr. Bhuibhar cited several decisions before me, which were also cited before the learned trial Judge. Mr. Bhuibhar has placed heavy reliance on the judgment of a single Judge at Aurangabad Bench of this Court in Social and Cultural Association and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2014 3 AIRBomR 75, and submitted that the trial Judge has not correctly understood the said decision and has not applied the same in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Learned counsel for the revision applicants contended that the averments in the plaint as well as as the reliefs claimed were clearly within the perview of the decisions to be taken by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, who is empowered to decide the issues raised in the suit and, therefore, the bar under Section 80 of the Act would forcefully apply. He then submitted that the decision on which reliance has been placed by the learned trial Judge do not have any application and ought to have been distinguished by the learned trial Judge and, therefore, the suit ought to have been dismissed being not maintainable by upholding the objection raised by the revision applicants. He, therefore, prayed that the suit be dismissed.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Kadu, learned counsel for the non applicants, supported the impugned order and submitted that the perusal of the plaint and the documents along with the plaint and the events stated therein gave rise to the cause of action for filing the suit. The reading of the same together will show that the questions raised cannot be decided by the Assistant Charity Commissioner to attract bar of Section 80 of the Act. The trial Court, according to him, has correctly applied his mind to the entire averments of the plaint and the documents and the events which had occurred of taking predatory actions which were arbitrary. In order to enforce the infringement of their personal rights, plaintiffs had no other go but to file the civil suit. He then submitted that in the subject-matter of the suit, no proceedings are pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner nor any such proceedings can even be contemplated and as such the only available remedy for the non applicants-plaintiffs was to invoke the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the civil Court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, he prayed for dismissal of the revision application. In support of his case, learned counsel for the non applicants cited decisions in the case of Naresh Amritlal Shah and others v. Kantilal Chunilal Shah and others, 2001 1 MhLJ 572, Kedar Shivkumar Kale v. Digamber Shridhar Mhapsekar and others, 2007 4 MhLJ 77.