This Second Appeal does not take much of this Courts time to decide, as the same can be disposed of at the admission stage since the Second Appeal is bereft of involving any substantial questions of law to adjudicate upon.

2. The plaintiff, who lost his suit before both the Courts below, which concurrently rejected his suit for declaration that he is a permanent member of the 1st defendant club and that his termination of the Mess membership is illegal and for a consequential perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant from interfering with the use of facilities as a Mess member is, before this Court in this Second Appeal.

3. Plaintiffs case in nutshell is that he was an ex-captain from the Brigade of Gorkha and was released from Armed Forces in the year 1977; he was a member in the 5th defendant club. On 23.04.1990, the plaintiff made an application for permanent membership in the 1st defendant club through 5th defendant. Till his application was considered, he was granted temporary membership and put on probation period for 4 months. He paid the due charges. While-so on 12.07.2006, it was intimated to the plaintiff that permanent membership in the 1st defendant club was refused to him as he was not elected. Plaintiffs case is that the rejection of his permanent membership is illegal and contrary to the rules of the 1st defendant club, as the said club has failed to assign any reasons for his rejection. Hence the rejection is against the principles of natural justice and the letter is liable to be set aside for assigning no reason.

4. Defendant No.5 remained ex parte.

5. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 put up their written statements inter alia contending that the 1st defendant is one of the most elite clubs in the country and has re-structural arrangements with most of other elite clubs in the country and it was affiliated to clubs in the United Kingdom and United Arab Emirates and it was unregistered voluntary organization of like minded persons. It was governed by its own rules, bylaws and the managing committee of the 1st defendant comprising of 2nd and 3rd defendants and 6 other committee members were duly elected by the general body of the members for a period of 2 years. The applicants, who are admitted as temporary members, were asked to pay Rs.37,500/- and the said amount was collected from plaintiff also. However, payment of the said amount does not constitute any special privilege for the plaintiff and plaintiff was made a temporary member of the 1st defendant for a period of 4 months subject to the ballot. During the said period of 4 months, a temporary membership was given to the plaintiff creating an opportunity to him to meet the managing committee and also other members wherein it could be assessed whether his temporary membership could be made permanent or not. The managing committee in its meeting held on 12.07.2006, rejected the application of the plaintiff for permanent membership. The managing committee was vested with the right to admit or reject the application as per its rules. Its a voluntary association of like minded persons. The managing committee need not set out the reasons for rejecting an application for membership. Therefore, the rejection of the plaintiffs application can by no stretch of imagination be harped as against the principles of natural justice. On the other hand, during the four months period of temporary membership to use to the facilities of the club, he was given ample opportunity to meet the members of the managing committee in order to prove his credentials to be elected as permanent membership. There was absolutely no reason for rejection of application for permanent membership to be set aside. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff.

6. Both the Courts below rejected plaintiffs suit on the main finding that a decision to reject his application for permanent membership was made by following the due procedure and in that regard, there was no violation of principles of n