Judgment : Heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 3.1.2004 passed by the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, J.D., Kolhapur allowing application Exhibit 56 filed in Regular Civil Suit No.1532 of 2000 granting permission to the defendant nos.2 to 4 to contest the suit as Plaintiffs, by inserting themselves as Plaintiffs. The original Plaintiffs are therefore before this Court challenging the said order. The facts which are not in dispute are as under: 3. The Petitioner, who is the original Plaintiff filed an application under Section 51 of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (for short 'the said Act') for grant of permission to file suit under Section 50 of the said Act for recovery of the trust property. Similar application was also filed by the defendant nos.2 to 4 before the Deputy Charity Commissioner. The application filed by the Petitioner was allowed. As a result of it, the Petitioner has filed Regular Civil Suit No.1532 of 2000 as contemplated by Section 50 of the said Act. The application filed by the defendant no.2 to 4 was rejected by the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner on 19.8.2004. The Appeal challenging this order is pending. 4. During the pendency of the Regular Civil Suit No.1532 of 2000, an application was moved by the petitioners for joining them as plaintiffs or defendant nos.2 to 4 in the suit. The said application was allowed to the extent of permitting the petitioners to be impleaded as party defendants in the suit. The claim for permission to join as plaintiffs was not accepted. This is not the order under challenge. The petitioners are accordingly joined as parties in the suit as the defendant nos.2 to 4. 5. Subsequently, Exhibit 56, the application for transposition of the defendant nos.2 to 4 as plaintiffs was filed. The said application has been allowed by an order dated 3.1.2004. The Trial Court has recorded the finding that for the purpose of complete adjudication of the question involved, the defendants can be transposed to the category of the plaintiffs. It has been held that the interest of the plaintiffs and the defendant nos.2 to 4 is not different at all. It has further been held that, prima facie, the defendants have no legal interest in the subject matter of the suit and transposition can be ordered by using inherent powers. It has been held that the interest of the plaintiffs and the defendant nos.2 to 4 is not different at all. It has further been held that, prima facie, the defendants have no legal interest in the subject matter of the suit and transposition can be ordered by using inherent powers. 6. A suit for recovery of trust property can be instituted in the Civil Court under Section 50(ii) of the said Act by obtaining the consent of the Charity Commissioner, as contemplated by Section 51 of the said Act. The first proviso below Section 50 states that “no suit claiming any of the reliefs specified in this Section shall be instituted in respect of any public trust, except in conformity with the provisions thereof.” The requirement is mandatory. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 51, the Charity Commissioner can grant his consent in writing to institute the suit under Section 50 of the said Act. While granting consent, it is the jurisdiction conferred upon the Charity Commissioner, to decide as to in whose favour such consent is required to be granted. It is only a person who has been granted consent can file a suit under Section 50 of the said Act. If the Charity Commissioner refuses to grant consent, then the order is made appealable before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, under Sub-Section (2) of Section 51 of the said Act. The Sub-Section (4) of Section 51 states that “subject to the decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in appeal under Section 71, the decision of the Charity Commissioner under Sub-Section (1) shall be final and conclusive.” 7. The Sub-Section (4) of Section 51 states that “subject to the decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in appeal under Section 71, the decision of the Charity Commissioner under Sub-Section (1) shall be final and conclusive.” 7. The Section 80 of the said Act deals with the bar of jurisdiction and the same being relevant, reproduced below: “ Bar of jurisdiction :- Save as expressly provided in this Act, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act to be decided or dealt with by any officer or authority under this Act, (and in respect of) which the decision or order of such officer or authority has been made final and conclusive” The aforesaid provision creates bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide or to deal with any question which is by or under the Act is to be decided or dealt with by any officer or authority under the Act and in respect of which the decision or order of such officer or authority has been made final and conclusive. It is the Charity Commissioner, who has the jurisdiction under Section 51 of the said Act to decide who shall be competent to file a suit. The decision of the Charity Commissioner under Section 51 is made final and conclusive. Hence, the bar of jurisdiction on Civil Court to entertain, try and decide the suit raising a controversy that the Petitioner is competent to institute and/or prosecute the suit under Section 50(ii) of the said Act, is clearly ousted. The contention of Shri Kadam, the learned Senior Counsel that the question whether the Petitioner is to be permitted to prosecute the suit is required to be decided by the Civil Court, cannot be accepted. 8. In such a situation, the plaintiff can neither be substituted nor the defendant nos.2 to 4 can be allowed to prosecute the suit as plaintiffs for want of consent under Section 51 of the said Act, from the Charity Commissioner. The Trial Court has recorded the finding that there are no conflict of interest between the defendant nos.2 to 4 and the plaintiff. The plaintiff as well as the defendant nos.2 to 4 wanted the suit property to be recovered from the defendant no.1. The Trial Court has recorded the finding that there are no conflict of interest between the defendant nos.2 to 4 and the plaintiff. The plaintiff as well as the defendant nos.2 to 4 wanted the suit property to be recovered from the defendant no.1. It is the apprehension expressed that the defendant no.1 is the sister-in-law of the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff should not be allowed to contest the suit. This is matter to be seen by the Charity Commissioner while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 51 of the said Act and it cannot be looked into by the Civil Court in a suit instituted under Section 50 of the said Act. 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 3.1.2004 passed by the 5th Joint Civil Judge, J.D., Kolhapur below Exhibit 56 in Regular Civil Suit No.1532 of 2000 is hereby quashed and set aside. The application below Exhibit 56 filed by the defendant nos.2 to 4 is dismissed. 10. Needless to say that in the event if the appeal filed by the defendant nos.2 to 4 is allowed, then it shall be permissible for them to move any such application which can be decided in accordance with law.