Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Civil Revision Application 24 of 2002
Appellant : Triganga Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha,
Jasitala Road, Nagpur,
through its Secretary- Shri Kapildeo Gopinath
Mishra, R/o: Gandhinagar, Nagpur.
.versus.
Respondent : Hridayanarayan s/o Rajmurti Mishra,
R/o: Plot No. 3 Swarupnagar Near Swawalambi
Nagar, Nagpur.
CORAM : A. P. Lavande, J
DATE : 16.6.2006
Oral Judgment
When this Revision Application was called out on
yesterday for hearing, neither the parties nor their advocates
appeared. Hence, the matter was adjourned today for hearing.
When the matter is called out today, again parties and their
advocates are absent. Since this Revision Application, in view of the
Judgment of the Apex Court in Hukumchand Amolikchand
Longde vs. Madhava Balaji Patdar, reported in AIR 1983
S.C., 540 cannot be dismissed in default and has to be decided on
merits, it is being decided on merits.
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:24:19 :::
2
2. The applicant is the original defendant and respondent is
the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 1520/2001 before the
th
7 Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Nagpur. The plaintiff filed the above suit
for declaration that the removal of the plaintiff's membership from
the sanstha was illegal and without any authority. The plaintiff also
sought injunction against the defendant directing it not to induct
any new member in the sanstha during the pendency of the suit.
The suit was contested by the defendant. Preliminary objection as
to the maintainability of the suit was taken. According to the
defendant, in view of Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act,
the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable and,
therefore,the Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the suit and
grant reliefs in favour of the plaintiff. The preliminary issue about
jurisdiction of the Court was framed and after considering the
evidence led on the preliminary issue the trial court by impugned
order dated 31.10.2001 dismissed the objection and held that the
Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.
3. Since the learned counsel for the parties have chosen not
to put in appearance, I have to decide this Civil Revision Application
on the basis of the material placed on record. I have perused the
records. The trial Court while deciding the issue in favour of the
plaintiff has held that the Court has jurisdiction to deal with the suit.
The claim of the defendant that section 50 of the Bombay Public
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:24:19 :::
3
Trust Act is attracted in the present case and, therefore, the Civil
Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the suit, has been negatived
by the trial learned trial Court. In support of this finding, the
learned trial Court has relied upon the Judgment of this Court
reported in 1961 Bombay Law Reporter at page 235 as well as
in the Judgment of this Court reported in 1986 Mah. Law Journal
at page 773.
4. I have perused the impugned order and having considered
the findings given by the learned trial Court while passing the
impugned order, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not
committed any jurisdictional error to warrant interference of this
Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The finding of the trial
Court that the suit is not barred under section 50 of the Bombay
Public Trust Act, 1950 cannot be said to be illegal or in excess of
jurisdiction. The finding of the trial Court that the suit filed by the
plaintiff was maintainable cannot be faulted.
5. In the result, therefore, I do not find any merit in the Civil
Revision Application. Consequently, the Civil Revision Application
is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judge
patle
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:24:19 :::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Civil Revision Application 24 of 2002
Appellant : Triganga Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha,
Jasitala Road, Nagpur,
through its Secretary- Shri Kapildeo Gopinath
Mishra, R/o: Gandhinagar, Nagpur.
.versus.
Respondent : Hridayanarayan s/o Rajmurti Mishra,
R/o: Plot No. 3 Swarupnagar Near Swawalambi
Nagar, Nagpur.
CORAM : A. P. Lavande, J
DATE : 16.6.2006
Oral Judgment
When this Revision Application was called out on
yesterday for hearing, neither the parties nor their advocates
appeared. Hence, the matter was adjourned today for hearing.
When the matter is called out today, again parties and their
advocates are absent. Since this Revision Application, in view of the
Judgment of the Apex Court in Hukumchand Amolikchand
Longde vs. Madhava Balaji Patdar, reported in AIR 1983
S.C., 540 cannot be dismissed in default and has to be decided on
merits, it is being decided on merits.
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:24:19 :::
2
2. The applicant is the original defendant and respondent is
the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 1520/2001 before the
th
7 Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Nagpur. The plaintiff filed the above suit
for declaration that the removal of the plaintiff's membership from
the sanstha was illegal and without any authority. The plaintiff also
sought injunction against the defendant directing it not to induct
any new member in the sanstha during the pendency of the suit.
The suit was contested by the defendant. Preliminary objection as
to the maintainability of the suit was taken. According to the
defendant, in view of Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act,
the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable and,
therefore,the Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the suit and
grant reliefs in favour of the plaintiff. The preliminary issue about
jurisdiction of the Court was framed and after considering the
evidence led on the preliminary issue the trial court by impugned
order dated 31.10.2001 dismissed the objection and held that the
Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.
3. Since the learned counsel for the parties have chosen not
to put in appearance, I have to decide this Civil Revision Application
on the basis of the material placed on record. I have perused the
records. The trial Court while deciding the issue in favour of the
plaintiff has held that the Court has jurisdiction to deal with the suit.
The claim of the defendant that section 50 of the Bombay Public
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:24:19 :::
3
Trust Act is attracted in the present case and, therefore, the Civil
Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the suit, has been negatived
by the trial learned trial Court. In support of this finding, the
learned trial Court has relied upon the Judgment of this Court
reported in 1961 Bombay Law Reporter at page 235 as well as
in the Judgment of this Court reported in 1986 Mah. Law Journal
at page 773.
4. I have perused the impugned order and having considered
the findings given by the learned trial Court while passing the
impugned order, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not
committed any jurisdictional error to warrant interference of this
Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The finding of the trial
Court that the suit is not barred under section 50 of the Bombay
Public Trust Act, 1950 cannot be said to be illegal or in excess of
jurisdiction. The finding of the trial Court that the suit filed by the
plaintiff was maintainable cannot be faulted.
5. In the result, therefore, I do not find any merit in the Civil
Revision Application. Consequently, the Civil Revision Application
is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judge
patle
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:24:19 :::