The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited jurisdiction of the Civil Court in interfering with the decisions of a club's executive committee.

( 1 ) APPELLANT is before me challenging the order dated 16-4-2005 passed on I. A. No. I in O. S. No. 2251 of 2005.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are as under: appellant was elected as the President of Sadashivanagar Club by the General Body of the Society in an Annual General Meeting held on 11-6-2004. Certain construction activities were carried out in the club premises and some of the members complained that there were some irregularities in the utilisation of funds. In this regard an extraordinary general Body Meeting was held and a fact finding committee was constituted. "one Sri Jagadishchandra and others filed a suit in O. S. No. 9044 of 2004 against the club praying to declare that the convening of the extraordinary General Body Meeting on 3-10-2004 and the proceedings of the said meeting and all steps pursuant to the same are illegal and void. An ex parte order of injunction was granted in the said suit. Plaintiff-appellant filed objections on behalf of the defendants including the club. Suit was later withdrawn. ""the appellant herein was the President of the Club and he was also a senior permanent member of the club. One Sri Chandrakanth halgali had submitted an application for permanent membership. The committee had deferred the decision. Appellant raised objections to the application for membership submitted by Sri Chandrakanth Halgali, on the ground that he was not suitable for permanent member. ""thereafter appellant received a notice on 14-3-2005 suspending him under Rule 15 (e), (i) and (j) of the Rules governing Sadashivanagar club on the ground that he has filed statement of objections in O. S. No. 9044 of 2004 representing the club, though it had been agreed that all past issues relating to the construction issue have to be closed and that the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 9044 of 2004 would withdraw the suit. It is farther stated that the filing of the objections by the appellant is without authority, as the respondent was not consulted. The other reason for suspending the appellant was that he has used the club letter head in his individual capacity to address a letter to the President of the bangalore Club requesting him not to consider the application of one of the member of the Sadashivanagar Club who had applied for a membership in the Bangalore Club. According to the club, these acts amount to indiscipline of a grave nature. ""thereafter appellant received a letter dated 9-4-2005 stating that the order of suspension is continued till the Disciplinary Committee completes the enquiry. Being aggrieved by the letter of suspension, appellant filed O. S. No. 2251 of 2005 for declaration that the order of suspension in invalid and is inoperative against the appellant. An I. A. was also filed seeking to suspend the operation of the suspension order dated 14-3-2005. Respondent filed his written statement and a memo to treat the same as objections to the I. A. filed by the appellant. Learned judge after hearing the parties dismissed I. A. No. I filed by the appellant. Appellant in these circumstances is before me. "

( 3 ) SRI G. S. Vishweshwara, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant took me through the pleadings to say that suspension is unwarranted and illegal. According to him, the learned Judge has committed a serious error in not granting injunction as sought for by the appellant. Learned Counsel would further say that Section 93 of the cpc would provide jurisdiction in the matter.

( 4 ) AFTER hearing I have carefully perused the order of the learned trial Judge. He has noticed the material facts and thereafter has framed a point with regard to suspension. He notices the rules governing suspension and the case-laws and ultimately he has rejected the application of the appellant. Let me see as to whether this order requires my interference or not.

( 5 ) LAW is fairly well-settled that the Appellate Court is not to interfere unless the order impugned is unreasonable, perverse or violative of principles of n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document