(1.) Heard Mr. Bhandarkar, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr.Kendurkar, learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) In this revision, there is a challenge to the order dated 10.11.2003 made below Ex.67 by the trial Court rejecting the application (Ex.67) in Reg. Civil Suit No. 1673/93. The application was made under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The learned trial Court rejected the said application and held that the provision is not attracted when a private civil right was being sought to be enforced in the civil suit, namely for removal of encroachment on the property of the plaintiff by the applicant/trust. The view taken by the learned trial Court is well supported by two decisions of this Court (i) 1986 Mh.L.J. 773 (Vidarbha Kshatriya Mali Shikshan Sanstha v. Mahatma Fuley Shikshan Samiti, Amravati) and (ii) 2003(4) Mh.L.J. 187 (Sainath Mandir Trust, Amravati v. Vijaya w/o Vithalrao Mandale).
(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the decisions cited as well as the plaint that was shown by the learned counsel for respondent, I am satisfied that the case is fully covered by the aforesaid two decisions and consequently I hold that the order made by the trial Court rejecting the application for rejection of plaint is legal, correct and proper. The suit that was filed by the plaintiff is of the year 1993 and as observed by the trial Court the application (Ex.67) was moved after ten years. If the applicants were really aggrieved they ought to have moved the application immediately after they received the suit summons, but they took ten years to do so. Due to this act of the applicants, the progress of the suit stopped completely. Adding to that, in this revision also the applicants sought stay. The applicants were not justified in prolonging the suit unnecessarily for such a long time.