JUDGMENT - S.B. MHASE, J.:---Heard Shri R.N. Dhorde, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri V.S. Bedre, learned Counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 2. This Civil Revision Application arises from the Regular Civil Suit No. 179 of 1983 filed by the present petitioners. The plaint in the said suit has been returned to the petitioners by order dated 7-10-1983 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parner. The said order of return of plaint was challenged by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 321 of 1983, which is dismissed by the 2nd Additional District Judge at Ahmednagar on 25-7-1989. In the result, the order of the trial Court was confirmed. 3. Before we proceed to consider the controversy, one more fact is required to be stated that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have also filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 168 of 1983 against the trustees of Bhairavnath Devasthan. That suit was also returned by the trial Court. The trial Court has passed common order in respect of both the suits returning the plaint on a ground that both the suits are the suits under section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and, therefore, the permission under section 51 is required and, therefore, returned the plaints. It is further interesting to note that the trial Court directed the parties to remain present before the District Judge on 31-10-1083. It requires to be noticed that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who have filed Regular Civil Suit No. 168 of 1983 and which was returned along with Regular Civil Suit No. 179 of 1983, as stated earlier, have not obtained the permission under section 50 and have not filed a suit in the District Court after the return of the plaint. Not only that, but the order dated 7-10-1983 was not challenged by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 so far as the Regular Civil Suit No. 168 of 1983 is concerned and, therefore, the order to the extent of Regular Civil Suit No. 168 of 1983 has obtained a finality. In the present matter, therefore, this Court is only concerned with the legality and validity of the orders passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parner and the 2nd Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar, qua the Regular Civil Suit No. 179 of 1983 only. 4. In the present matter, therefore, this Court is only concerned with the legality and validity of the orders passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parner and the 2nd Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar, qua the Regular Civil Suit No. 179 of 1983 only. 4. The learned Counsel Shri R.N. Dhorde appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs submitted that the observations made by both the courts below are misconceived and not in accordance with law. He submitted that the petitioners are the trustees and those trustees who were not available for signing the plaint have been joined as parties to the suit as defendants No. 4 to 8 and the suit is mainly as against the defendants No. 1 to 3, namely the respondents No. 1 to 3 in the present revision petition. He stated that the case of the plaintiffs is that the respondents No. 1 to 3 have no concern what-so-ever with the trust property. However, they have unauthorisedly obstructed the enjoyment of the trust property. In short, the suit is as against the third party who are obstructing the plaintiffs and, therefore, he says that the provisions of section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act are not applicable. He relied upon 1992(2) Bom.C.R. 22 (Amirchand v. Vasant)1 and submitted that this Court has held that whenever the suit is against the trespasser, the permission under section 51 is not necessary. He also relied upon 1986 Mh.L.J. 773 (V.K.M.S.S. v. M.F.S.S.)2 and contended that whenever the suit is otherwise than section 50, such suit has to be filed in ordinary forum and is not required to be instituted as defined in section 2(4) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. Bedre submitted that the District Judge has properly considered the provisions of law and has decided that the permission is necessary and, therefore, the order of return of plaint is proper and just. He also invited the attention of this Court to section 56-B of the Bombay Public Trusts Act to point out the the Charity Commissioner is not party to the suit. 6. He also invited the attention of this Court to section 56-B of the Bombay Public Trusts Act to point out the the Charity Commissioner is not party to the suit. 6. With the help of the learned Counsel, this Court has gone through the plaint and it is revealed from the plaint that the defendants No. 1 to 3 i.e. respondents No. 1 to 3 have no concern with trust or trust property as trustee and they are third parties and, therefore, the suit for injunction has been filed. In fact, these third parties have not allowed the person who has taken the land of trust on auction, to enter the said land and, thereby the respondents are threatening to the possession of the trust and are not entitled to tres-pass in the land of the trust and, therefore, the suit has been filed. Such a suit against the trespassers is not a suit under section 50 as has been observed in 1992(2) Bom.C.R. 22 by the Division Bench of this Court and the permission is not necessary. It is also worthwhile to note that if as against the trespasser the trustees are required to obtain permission under section 51 and thereafter to file the suit, probably by that time the permission to file suit is obtained, the person threatening will capture the property. And those provisions protect the trust and trustees will result into adverse application to the trust and trustees. Therefore, when the suit is against the third party, or the trespassers and/or persons threatening to the trust or trustees, in that eventuality, the suit will not be under section 50 and permission under section 51 will not be necessary. The trial Court and District Judge on scrutiny have found that the suit is under section 50 and, therefore, returned the plaint. But the very scrutiny that the suit is under section 50 was not in accordance with law and, therefore, ultimately the decision given by both the courts below is erroneous. 7. It further, requires to be mentioned that once the suit is not covered under section 50, then the ordinarily Civil Court is the forum where the suit has to be filed. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel on 1986 Mh.L.J. 773 is proper and correct one. 7. It further, requires to be mentioned that once the suit is not covered under section 50, then the ordinarily Civil Court is the forum where the suit has to be filed. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel on 1986 Mh.L.J. 773 is proper and correct one. In the result, the orders of the return of the plaint passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parner and the 2nd Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar are hereby set aside. 8. So far as objection in respect of section 56-B is concerned, when the matter involves any question affecting a public religious or charitable purpose, then the Charity Commissioner is required to be given notice. In the present matter, the civil suit affecting the public religious or charitable purpose is not involved and, therefore, section 56-B is not applicable. Not only that but the word "Court" has been defined in this section which means any Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in the State of Maharashtra and, therefore, in the present matter even if the Charity Commissioner is required to be a party, for that purpose the plaintiffs cannot be non-suited. Plaintiffs can take steps if required for adding the parties. However, the return of the plaint cannot be justified on that ground. 9. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The orders passed by both the courts below are hereby set aside. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parner is hereby directed to accept and register the plaint and restore it to the original number and shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law. Rule made absolute in the above terms. In the facts and circumstances, no costs. Petition allowed.