The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for the court to consider only the statements and averments made in the plaint when deciding an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the importance of allowing parties to lead evidence on disputed points before rejecting the plaint.

( 1 ) -THIS first appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 17th July, 2007 passed by Civil Judge (S. D.), Lucknow in Regular Suit No. 428 of 2007, Prashant Chandra v. Lucknow Golf Club and others, whereby the learned Judge accepted the application filed by the defendant-respondents under Order VII, Rule 11, C. P. C. and dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed the Regular Suit for declaration and permanent injunction alleging that the Lucknow Golf Club (hereinafter referred as club) is a registered Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, with office at 1 Kalidas Marg, Lucknow having its own memorandum and bye-laws to govern the affairs of the Society. The plaintiff was a permanent member of the Society. The plaintiff being a Senior Advocate was engaged to argue the contempt petition filed by one Mr. Amit Magon in respect of the dispute pertaining to the elections of the defendant No. 1 in the year 2005. On the contempt petition, notices were directed to be issued to the respondent contemnors vide order dated 15. 5. 2007. Amit Magon who is also a member of defendant No. 1, instituted a Regular Suit No. 372 of 2007 for declaration against the notice issued for convening a meeting on 27. 5. 2007. This Court had passed a status quo order dated 18. 5. 2007 and, against that order, Writ Petition No. 2562 of 2007 (M/s) was preferred by defendants No. 1 and 3 and the injunction order was set aside and the writ petition was allowed vide order dated 24th May, 2007. That petition was also argued by the present appellant Special Appeal No. 515 of 2007 filed against the order dated 24. 5. 2007 was also dismissed on 26th May, 2007 as the same was not maintainable. After dismissal of the appeal, the meeting was held on 27th May, 2007 in disregard of the orders dated 22. 11. 2006 and the Managing Committee of the Club was elected and the defendant No. 3 was elected as Hony. Secretary. According to the appellant, there is no provision in the bye-laws of the Club prohibiting any member to practice any trade or profession and the appellant also did not have any agreement with the Club that in discharge of his professional duties he would not argue against the Club.

( 3 ) THE defendant No. 3 pressurized the plaintiff not to appear in the matters against the Club and also not to press the contempt petition but the plaintiff did not succumb to the pressure and it annoyed the defendant No. 3 and he in order to take vengeance against the plaintiff pasted an order dated 28. 5. 2007 on the notice-board of the Club. In the said order, it was indicated that there were serious charges of misconduct and indiscipline against the plaintiff and it was desirable to place under suspension the Club membership of the plaintiff and an enquiry was also ordered and the Inquiry Committee was also constituted. According to the plaintiff, these allegations gave a set-back to him as well as his reputation.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff specifically pleaded in para 15 of the plaint as under:- "that apparently the letter dated 28. 5. 2007 is legally non est, illegal, unlawful and void ab initio inasmuch as there are no rules termed as Discipline and Appeal Rules of Lucknow Golf Club and as such the defendant No. 3 could not have resorted to such Rules to put the membership of the plaintiff under suspension. It is categorically stated that there was no such Rule nor there has been any rectification by any of the members in respect of the said Rules nor there is any approval of the Registrar of Firms, Chits and Societies. Thus, it would be seen that the Rules as mentioned above are absolutely non-existent and void ab initio and have apparently-been fabricated by the defendant No. 3 for personal gains and ulterior purposes. "

( 5 ) THE plaintiff also alleged that earlier, the membership of two other members of the Club was placed under suspension relying upon the Disci