P.C : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. 1) The Applicant has invoked revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) for setting up a challenge to the order dated 24 July 2017 passed by the 3 rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune rejecting the application filed by the Applicant/Defendant No.1 seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. 2) Applicant is a Trust registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (MPT Act). Respondent Nos.1 to 4, who claim to be life members of the Trust, are the original Plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No. 383 of 2017, who have have challenged Resolution dated 4 March 2017 adopted by the Governing Council of the Trust, as well as, Resolution dated 5 March 2017 adopted in the General Body Meeting expelling them from the position of life membership. Plaintiffs have also prayed for mandatory injunction for their reinstatement as life members of the Trust. Plaintiffs have also sought damages from the Defendants. Defendant No.3, for himself and on behalf of Defendant No.1-Trust, filed application at Exhibit-19 seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code on twin grounds of the Suit not disclosing the cause of action and the suit being barred by provisions of Sections 50, 51 and 80 of the MPT Act. The application was resisted by the Plaintiffs by filing Affidavit-in-Reply. By impugned order dated 24 July 2017, the Trial Court has proceeded to reject the application holding inter alia that the Plaintiffs are merely trying to enforce and protect their civil rights unconnected with the provisions of Section 50 of the MPT Act. Aggrieved by order dated 24 July 2017, the Applicant-Trust has filed the present Civil Revision Application. 3) I have heard Mr. Bhargude, the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, who would submit that the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application of the Applicant seeking rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. He would submit that the prayers sought by the Plaintiff in the Suit challenging their expulsion would clearly be covered by the ambit of Section 50 of the MPT Act. In support of his contention, he would rely upon judgment of this Court in Rajesh Chunilal Meghani Versus. Andheri Recreation Club and Ors., 2017 (4) Bom CR 855. He would submit that the prayers sought by the Plaintiff in the Suit challenging their expulsion would clearly be covered by the ambit of Section 50 of the MPT Act. In support of his contention, he would rely upon judgment of this Court in Rajesh Chunilal Meghani Versus. Andheri Recreation Club and Ors., 2017 (4) Bom CR 855. He would submit that in absence of consent of Charity Commissioner under Section 51 of the MPT Act, the Suit is clearly barred. He would further submit that the Trial Court has erred in holding that the Suit is filed for enforcement of civil rights of the Plaintiff, ignoring the position that what is actually sought is declaration of validity of membership. He would submit that the Suit is clearly barred by the provisions of Section 80 of the MPT Act. He would pray for setting aside the impugned order and for rejection of plaint in the Suit. 4) Mr. Gorwadkar, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 4/Original Plaintiffs would oppose the Revision Application. He would submit that the Revision Application filed at the behest of the Applicant-Trust is not maintainable. He would submit that the Plaintiffs have not sought any prayer against the Trust in the Suit and that the prayers in the Suit are directed against the Defendants in their capacity as Trustees. That it is a well-settled position that in a suit filed by/or against the Trust, all trustees must join together and it is impermissible for the Trust to sue or file proceedings in its individual capacity. That Trust is not a juristic person. He would accordingly submit that the application filed by Defendant No.3 on behalf of Defendant No.1-Trust itself was not maintainable. In any case, according to Mr. Gorwadkar, the present Civil Revision Application filed by the Trust on ostensible verification/affidavit of just one trustee (Defendant No. 3), is not maintainable. That there is nothing on record to indicate that the Trust has adopted a resolution for filing of the present Application. 5) Without prejudice, Mr. Gorwadkar would submit that the prayer sought in the plaint does not come within the ambit of Section 50 of the MPT Act. That no relief is sought in the Suit against the Trust or trustees. 5) Without prejudice, Mr. Gorwadkar would submit that the prayer sought in the plaint does not come within the ambit of Section 50 of the MPT Act. That no relief is sought in the Suit against the Trust or trustees. That Plaintiffs are merely seeking to enforce their civil rights in the Suit for which no consent under Section 51 of the MPT act is necessary. He would submit that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the above position while dismissing the baseless application preferred by Defendant Nos.1 and 3. He would pray for dismissal of the Revision Application. 6) Rival contentions of the parties now fall for my consideration. 7) Mr. Gorwadkar has raised an objection to maintainability of the present Revision Application at the behest of the Trust in absence of all trustees joining together. The objection is stated only to be rejected. Firstly, the said objection was not raised while filing reply to application at Exhibit-19. Furthermore, Plaintiffs themselves have impleaded the Applicant as Defendant No.1 in the Suit. Any defendant in the suit can file application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code seeking rejection of the plaint. Therefore, even if the Plaintiffs may have sued all the defendants in their collective capacity, the same cannot prevent a singular Defendant from seeking rejection of the plaint. The Defendant who is aggrieved by the Order passed by the Trial Court in its application, can maintain a Revision before this Court and it cannot be insisted that all Defendants must join in filing the revision. The objection to maintainability of the Revision Application is accordingly repelled. 8) Plaintiffs’ Suit specifically challenges the Resolutions adopted by the Trust in Governing Council Meeting dated 4 March 2017 and in General Body Meeting dated 5 March 2017 having the effect of their expulsion as life members of the Trust. The prayers in the suit read thus: “(a) It be declared that Plaintiffs were and are still Life Members of the Defendant no.1. The prayers in the suit read thus: “(a) It be declared that Plaintiffs were and are still Life Members of the Defendant no.1. (b) It be declared that resolutions of expulsion of Plaintiffs as a Life Member of Defendant no.1 passed in the meeting of Governing Council on 4/3/2017 and that of the General Body Meeting held on 5/3/2017 be declared as illegal and invalid; (c) By an order of mandatory injunction the Defendant no.2 and other office bearers be directed to reinstate the names of Plaintiffs in the role of Life Members of Defendant no 1; (d) Defendant no 3 to 31 be directed to pay the damages of Rs. 10 Lakhs to the Plaintiffs for mentally harassing and humiliating the Plaintiffs before the members present in the General Body Meeting of the Defendant No.1. (e) Such other order in the interest of justice be also passed; (f) Cost of the suit be awarded to the Plaintiffs from the Defendants 3 to 31.” 9) The Trial Court has held that the prayer for setting aside expulsion of a trustee amounts to espousal of civil right unconnected with the matters enumerated under Section 50 of the MPT Act. However, this issue is no more res integra and is covered by judgments of the Apex Court and of this Court and the finding of exercise of civil rights appears to have been recorded by the Trial Court in ignorance of the settled law. 10) The issue with regard to expulsion from membership of a Trust falling within the ambit of Section 50 of the MPT Act arose for consideration before the Single Judge of this Court (M.S. Sonak, J.) in Rajesh Chunilal Meghani (supra). In that case, the order/resolution passed by the Club suspending the Appellant therein was the subject matter of challenge. This Court examined the statutory scheme of Sections 50 and 51 of the MPT Act and thereafter relied upon the judgment of this Court in Social Cultural Association & Ors. Versus. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 2835 wherein the notices and resolutions cancelling membership of the Club was subject matter of challenge in a Suit. This Court examined the statutory scheme of Sections 50 and 51 of the MPT Act and thereafter relied upon the judgment of this Court in Social Cultural Association & Ors. Versus. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 2835 wherein the notices and resolutions cancelling membership of the Club was subject matter of challenge in a Suit. This Court after examining the statutory scheme of Section 50 of the MPT Act held that the prayer seeking declaration of validity or otherwise of membership of the Trust would be barred by the provisions of Section 80 of the MPT Act since matter is covered under Section 50 thereof. This Court held in paras-12 to 13 as under: 12. Relevant portions of section 50 of the Trust Act, read as under:— “50. Suit by or against or relating to public trusts or trustees or others In any case,— (i) ……………… (ii) ……………… (iii) ……………… (iv) for any declaration or injunction in favour of or against a public trust or trustee or trustees or beneficiary thereof, the Charity Commissioner after making such enquiry as he thinks necessary or two or more persons having an interest in case the suit is under sub- clauses (i) to (iii), or one or more such persons in case the suit is under sub-clause (iv) having obtained the consent in writing of the Charity Commissioner as provided in section 51 may institute a suit whether contentious or not in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or part of the subject-matter of the trust is situate, to obtain a decree for any of the following reliefs:— (a) …………… to (o) …………… (p) declaration or denying any right in favour of or against a public trust or trustee or trustees or beneficiary thereof and issuing injunctions in appropriate cases; or (q) granting any other relief as the nature of the case may require which would be a condition precedent to or consequential to any of the aforesaid relief or is necessary in the interest of the trust:”……………………… 13. It is clear from the perusal of the above provisions, that declaration relating to “any right” in favour of or against trustees or beneficiaries thereof is covered under the above provisions. The rights claimed by the plaintiffs are apparently not individual rights. It is clear from the perusal of the above provisions, that declaration relating to “any right” in favour of or against trustees or beneficiaries thereof is covered under the above provisions. The rights claimed by the plaintiffs are apparently not individual rights. Plaint claims that to keep plaintiffs out of power their membership is cancelled and then elections were called and that the membership cancelled is beyond the Scheme of the Trust. The right to membership cannot be said to be divorced from being member of the Trust. The right claimed is that their membership of the Trust could not have been cancelled by the Trust in the manner in which it has been done. The right emanates basically from being member of the Trust. Merely calling the right civil right will not help. It cannot be said that it is any independent right not connected with the affairs of the Trust or management of the Trust. It has been rightly argued by the learned counsel for petitioners-defendants that if the right is to be enforced against the Trust, consent of the Charity Commissioner is necessary under section 50 of the Trust Act. The contentions in the Plaint itself shows that the membership was cancelled with the object of election which was due on 2nd September, 2012. Change report regarding the election is already before the Charity Commissioner and learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the respondents-plaintiffs have already raised objections. Thus, the dispute whether or not the membership has been legally or illegally cancelled, can be considered when objections regarding the election which followed, are considered in the Change Report. I find that the present Suit must be held to be barred as per section 80 of the Trust Act, as the matter is covered under section 50 of the Trust Act, in case the plaintiffs want to pursue the dispute before the Court. The dispute can be decided and dealt with even at the time of Change Report. Thus, section 80 of the Trust Act applies and the Suit is not maintainable. 11) In Rajesh Chunilal Meghani (supra), this Court also relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Church of North India vs. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai and Ors., (2005) 10 SCC 760 and Dhulabhai Vs. Thus, section 80 of the Trust Act applies and the Suit is not maintainable. 11) In Rajesh Chunilal Meghani (supra), this Court also relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Church of North India vs. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai and Ors., (2005) 10 SCC 760 and Dhulabhai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1969 SC 78 in which it has held that jurisdiction of Civil Courts would be excluded when there is adequate remedy available under the provisions of MPT Act. This Court thus concluded in Rajesh Chunilal Meghani (supra) as under: 15. From the perusal of the averments in the plaint as also the reliefs applied therein, it is clear that the appellant admits that he is the member of respondent No. 1, which is a public trust registered under the MPT Act. Besides, it is also the case of the appellant that respondent No. 1 is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Section 2(10) of the MPT Act, defines the expression “person having interest” to include, inter alia, in case of a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, any member of such society, and in case of any other public trust, any trustee or beneficiary. In terms of averments made by the appellant in the plaint, it is quite clear that the appellant, answers the definition of the expression “person having interest”. 16. The suit, as instituted, is mainly to question the order/resolution of respondent No. 1 Club in suspending or purporting to suspend the appellant. The appellant, in such circumstances, has prayed for a declaration and injunction, in the matter of such order/resolution suspending him or purporting to suspend him from the membership of society/trust. There is also relief to set aside such suspension. The substantive reliefs applied for in the plaint read thus: “a. it be declared by this Hon'ble Court that the purported and attempted suspension of the plaintiff from the membership of the Andheri Recreation Club, communicated to the plaintiff on 26th November, 2015 by the Club's letter dated 23rd November, 2015 and the resolution to that effect dated 19th November, 2015, are illegal, perverse, bad in law, null, void, improper, against the principles of natural justice and not at all binding on the plaintiff, Andheri Recreation Club and its members. b. the purported and attempted suspension of the plaintiff from the membership of Andheri Recreation Club, communicated to the plaintiff on 26th November, 2015 by the  Club's letter dated 23rd November, 2015 and the resolution to that effect dated 19th November, 2015, be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. c. it be declared by this Hon'ble Court that the plaintiff continues to be a member of Andheri Recreation Club and is allowed to use all its facilities. d. it be declared by this Hon'ble Court that the conducting of the meeting by defendant Nos. 2 to 16 on 19th November, 2015 and the minutes of and the resolution passed in the said meeting, to the extent of the attempted and purported suspension of the plaintiff as a member of Andheri Recreation Club, are absolutely illegal and bad in law and even otherwise.” 17. Section 50 of the MPT Act makes provision for the institution of suits, by or against or relating to public trust or others, as indicated in the marginal note. It provides that in any case, where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any public trust, or for any declaration or injunction in favour of or against a public trust or trustee or trustees or beneficiary thereof, the Charity Commissioner, after making such enquiry as he thinks necessary may himself institute a suit to obtain any of the reliefs prescribed under section 50 of the MPT Act. In the alternate, two or more persons having an interest, in case the suit is under sub- clauses (i) to (iii), or one or more such persons in case the suit is under sub-clause (iv), having obtained the consent in writing of the Charity Commissioner, as provided in section 51 of the MPT Act, may institute a suit in the Court within a local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or part of the subject matter of the trust is situate, again, to obtain a decree for any of the reliefs specified in section 50 of the MPT Act. 18. In this case, particular reference is required to be made to the provisions in section 50(iv), which concerns suits for any declaration or injunction in favour of or against the public trust or trustee or trustees or beneficiaries thereof. 18. In this case, particular reference is required to be made to the provisions in section 50(iv), which concerns suits for any declaration or injunction in favour of or against the public trust or trustee or trustees or beneficiaries thereof. The suits of such nature can be instituted by one or more persons having interest after obtaining consent in writing of the Charity Commissioner as provided in section 51 of the MPT Act. The reliefs as contemplated in a suit as envisaged under section 50 of the MPT Act, includes inter alia, a declaration or denial of any right in favour of or against public trust or trustee or trustees or beneficiaries thereof and issuing injunctions in appropriate cases. This is clear from the provisions contained in section 50(p) of the MPT Act. The proviso to section 50, in terms provides that no suit claiming any of the reliefs specified in section 50 of the MPT Act shall be instituted in respect of in public trust, except in conformity with the provisions thereof. 19. Section 51 of the MPT Act provides that if the persons having an interest in any public trust intend to file a suit of the nature specified in section 50, they shall apply to the Charity Commissioner in writing for his consent. If the Charity Commissioner after hearing the parties and making such enquiries, if any, as he thinks fit is satisfied that there is a prima facie case, he may within a period of six months from the date on which the application is made, grant or refuse his consent to the institution of such suit. The order of the Charity Commissioner refusing his consent shall be in writing and shall state the reasons for the refusal. As against refusal of consent, an appeal is provided to the Divisional Commissioner. Section 51(3) of the MPT Act provides that in every suit filed by persons having interest in any trust under section 50, the Charity Commissioner shall be a necessary party. 20. Section 50(4) of the MPT Act, provides that subject to decision of the Divisional Commissioner in appeal under section 71, the decision of the Charity Commissioner under section 50(1) shall be final and conclusive. ... 29. 20. Section 50(4) of the MPT Act, provides that subject to decision of the Divisional Commissioner in appeal under section 71, the decision of the Charity Commissioner under section 50(1) shall be final and conclusive. ... 29. Upon perusal of the averments in the appellant's plaintiff and the reliefs prayed for therein, there is no reason to upset the impugned order dated 30 January, 2016, in which, learned Trial Judge has held that the suit as instituted stands covered under section 50 of the MPT Act. The appellant's suit, seeks a declaration that the order/resolution suspending him is illegal, null and void and further, seeks an injunction to restrain the public trust and its trustees from acting in pursuance of such order/resolution. In effect, the appellant, seeks a declaration with regard to his status as a member of the trust or complaint about denial of rights as a member of the trust and seeks relief of injunction in that regard. Upon reading of the appellant's plaint and the reliefs claimed therein in entirety, it cannot be said that there is any serious legal infirmity with the view taken by learned Trial Judge that the appellant's suit is a suit as contemplated under section 50 of the MPT Act. 31. Applying the law laid down in Social and Cultural Association (supra), Gaud Saraswat Brahmin Temple Trust (supra) and Dr. Rangnath Joshi (supra), it is not possible to accept Mr. Shah's contention that the reliefs in the appellant's suit are only to vindicate the appellant's personal or private rights. In this case, as noticed earlier, the appellant, answers the definition of the expression “person having interest” under section 2(10) of the MPT Act. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the order/resolution of the public trust suspending or purporting to suspend the appellant from the position held by him with the public trust. The reliefs applied for by the appellant in the suit also stand covered by the reliefs referred to in section 50 of the MPT Act. Admittedly, the appellant had not obtained prior consent from the Charity Commissioner before the institution of the suit. Proviso to section 50 of the MPT Act, in terms provides that no suit claiming any of the reliefs specified in section 50 shall be instituted in respect of any public trust, except in conformity with the provisions thereof. Admittedly, the appellant had not obtained prior consent from the Charity Commissioner before the institution of the suit. Proviso to section 50 of the MPT Act, in terms provides that no suit claiming any of the reliefs specified in section 50 shall be instituted in respect of any public trust, except in conformity with the provisions thereof. Similarly, section 51 of the MPT Act also provides that the consent of the Charity Commissioner is necessary for institution of a suit of the nature specified in section 50 of the MPT Act. For all these reasons, there is no case made out to interfere with the impugned order dated 30 January, 2016. 12) Thus, the issue of expulsion from membership falling in the ambit of Section 50 of the MPT Act is no longer res integra and is squarely covered by the judgments referred to above. The Trial Court has egregiously erred in holding that what is espoused by the Plaintiff is a mere civil right. The prayers in the Suit are squarely covered by the provisions of Section 50 of the MPT Act. Therefore, no Suit can be instituted without securing permission from the Charity Commissioner under Section 51 of the Act. Under Section 80 of the MPT Act, jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred. In my view therefore, there is an express bar to the maintainability of the Suit. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court ought to have rejected the plaint by having recourse to the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. The impugned order passed by the Trial Court is thus indefensible and liable to be set aside. 13) The Civil Revision Application accordingly succeeds and I proceed to pass the following Order : (i) Order dated 24 July 2017 passed by the Trial Court on application at Exhibit-19 filed in Special Civil Suit No. 383 of 2017 is set aside. (ii) Application at Exhibit-19 is allowed in terms of prayers made therein. (iii) Consequently, the plaint in Special Civil Suit No. 383 of 2017 is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. (iv) The Trial Court shall proceed to pass a formal order of dismissal of Special Civil Suit No. 383 of 2017. (v) Plaintiffs would be at liberty to espouse their grievance by adopting alternate remedy. (iii) Consequently, the plaint in Special Civil Suit No. 383 of 2017 is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. (iv) The Trial Court shall proceed to pass a formal order of dismissal of Special Civil Suit No. 383 of 2017. (v) Plaintiffs would be at liberty to espouse their grievance by adopting alternate remedy. 14) With the above directions, the Civil Revision Application is allowed. There shall be no orders as to costs.