The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the rules governing the powers of the Executive Committee to suspend a member and Secretary of the Club, and the consideration of the balance of convenience in granting a temporary injunction.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has arisen out of an order dated 1-3-1993 passed by the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore on LA. No. I in O. S. No. 448/1993.

( 2 ) WHEN the matter came up for admission, the learned Counsel on either side submitted that the matter may be disposed of finally on merits. Accordingly, the matter is taken up for final disposal on merits of the appeal.

( 3 ) THE facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are as under: defendant-appellant is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The plaintiff is said to be one of the members of the defendant's Society. During the General Body Meeting held on 22-8-1992 plaintiff was elected as the Honorary Secretary for a period of one year. It is stated that plaintiff has been working as the Honorary Secretary eversince then. When this was so, according to the plaintiff, some difference of opinion arose as between him and the President, with the result, the President of the Club was trying to wreak vengeance against him. It is stated that plaintiff was suspended as the member and the Secretary of the Club by the Executive Committee of the defendant-Society by its Resolution dated 15-1-1993. Plaintiff, therefore, was constrained to file the suit at O. S. No. 448/93 before the City Civil Court praying for a declaration that the resolution of the managing committee dated 15-1-1993 is illegal and for a permanent injunction restraining the Society from giving effect to the said resolution. In the course of the said suit, he also filed an application praying for temporary injunction restraining the defendant-society from giving effect to the resolution dated 15-1-1993 suspending him as the Honorary Secretary and permanent member. The main ground urged by him both in the plaint and the affidavit accompaning the application for temporary injunction in substance is that the Executive Committee has no right to suspend him either as a member of the club or the Secretary of the Club and that the resolution in question lacked bona fides. 3a. The defendant-appellant resisted the suit of the plaintiff as also the application for temporary injunction. The defendant denied the sins of commission attributed to it by the plaintiff. Defendant also asserted that the Executive Committee of the defendant society has got the right to suspend the plaintiff as a member and the Secretary of the Club. It also contended that the plaintiff is guilty of various sins of omission and commission and that the plaintiff was suspended pending report of the Disciplinary Committee. It also took up the usual contentions that plaintiff is not having prima facie case and the balance of convenience is not in his favour. On these grounds, in substance, defendant has prayed for the dismissal of the suit and the application for temporary injunction.

( 4 ) THE lower Court on a consideration of the materials on record and for the reasons reflected in its impugned order, allowed the application for temporary injunction. Hence, the instant appeal.

( 5 ) I have heard Sri B. V. Acharya, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Sri S. K. V. Chalapathi, learned Counsel for the respondent.

( 6 ) THE point for consideration is as to whether the order passed by the lower Court is in order.

( 7 ) IT is seen that plaintiff was a member of the Club in question though there appears to be denial in the written statement that he is a permanent member. There also does not appear to be any dispute that the plaintiff was elected as the Secretary by the General Body in 22-8-1992. It is further seen that the plaintiff was suspended both as a member and Secretary of the Club by a Resolution of the Executive Committee on 15-1-1993. The lower Court has taken the view that having regard to the wording of Rule 15 of the Rules of Sadashivanagar Club, the Executive Committee is not competent to suspend the plaintiff from his membership