HARI NATH TILHARI, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant Sri K. S. Hanumantha Rao and Sri Mohandas N. Hegde, learned counsel for the respondents.

( 2 ) THE only question that. arises in this case is whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the plaintiff's suit for declaration that his removal from defendant's club is illegal simply on the ground that suit is badly framed on account of non-joinder of members of the club and whether the court should have entered into merits of the case in absence of necessary parties or the court should have decided the issue whether the necessary party had not been impleaded and if so its effect and should have directed the plaintiff or given time to the plaintiff to implead the parties which in view of the trial court have been necessary parties and thereafter should have decided the case on merits or thereafter should have dismissed the case on the ground that necessary parties not being impleaded and no relief can be granted.

( 3 ) THE: facts of the case in brief are, that plaintiff had prayed for a decree for declaration that his removal from the membership of the defendant Club is illegal and to declare that the Setter

Click Here to Read the rest of this document