The court reasserted that, under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, only the plaint's averments should determine the presence of a cause of action, disregarding the defendants' defenses.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court invoking Order VII Rule 11 of CPC wherein it is contended that no cause of action for the suit. The Trial Court passed an order on I.A.No.1 in coming to the conclusion that on 13.03.2019, notice is given to the plaintiff by defendant and on 17.03.2019, reply is given to the defendant by the plaintiff. On 22.03.2019, V.G.Chandrashekar has also given his letter in which he has mentioned about the notice given by defendant asking about the incident. On 22.03.2019 apology letter is given by plaintiff. On 27.03.2019 the letter is given by defendant closing the complaint. Thereafter, in May-2019 plaintiff issued letter to the defendant stating that the defendant has taken unilateral decision about the issue. It is necessary to notice that in the letter dated 22.09.2019 given by V.G.Chandrashekar, he mentioned about the notice given by the defendant to him also and that gives an indication that there is no unilateral decision by the defendant. But, he has issued notice to even V.G.Chandrashekar and his reply is received. Further, it is brought to the notice of this Court that Shivamogga City Club is registered body and defendant is its Secretary. The presence of Secretary or Vice President at the time of incident is not stated in the plaint. When he was not personally present at the time of incident, any damage caused by the defendant against the plaintiff cannot be ascertained from the records. All the major allegations are against V.G.Chandrashekar who has allegedly caused damage to the reputation of the plaintiff. The defendant is admittedly Secretary of the Club and his duty to issue notice to both parties when incident of this nature takes place. Accordingly, notice is issued and that itself will not make himself personally liable for damages to the plaintiff. Further, if issuance of notice itself is erroneous, the post of Vice President and Secretary will not serve any purpose as they will not have any control over the activities that takes place in the Club. No doubt, in the plaint, it is stated that defendant was hand in glove with the V.G.Chandrashekar. If that is the case, the defendant would have not received any reply from V.G.Chandrashekar, but, plaintiff himself has produced reply given to Secretary and invoked Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and allowed the same. The same is challenged before the Appellate Court in R.A.No.38/2023. The Appellate Court also while considering the material on record, taken note of the damages is claimed particularly in paragraph Nos.16 and so also essentially suit of the plaintiff is for damages and compensation against the defendant and also taken note of that plaintiff is permanent member of Club and also in the plaint, it is pleaded that the defendant is Secretary of the said Club. The Secretary and Vice President have powers to make enquiry with respect to untoward incident which may takes place. The Appellate Court having taken note of this and in paragraph No.20 comes to the conclusion that letter dated 22.09.2019 which is given by V.G.Chandrashekar wherein he has mentioned about the notice given by the defendant to him and it shows that there was no unilateral decision by defendant. He has issued notice to even V.G.Chandrashekar and his reply is also given and also discussion was made with regard to perusal of the materials on records, Club is also registered. The presence of Secretary or Vice President at the time of incident is not stated in the plaint. When he was not personally present at the time