dated

13.09.2021 passed on I.A No.1 in O.S No.3567/2020

on the file of the XX Additional City Civil and Sessions

Judge, CCH-32, Bengaluru, allowing the I.A No.1 filed

under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and etc,.

:: 2 ::

This MFA coming on for Admission this day, the

Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The

defendant

being

appellant

has

challenged the order dated 13.9.2021 passed on

I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX

Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

2. The respondent/plaintiff was the member

of the defendant club. On the allegation of

misconduct by the plaintiff, one Gangadhar Reddy

made a complaint to the management committee

of the defendant. The plaintiff’s membership was

kept under suspension. Questioning the order of

suspension,

plaintiff

filed

a

suit,

O.S.8215/2019, and it was dismissed. In the

meantime, his membership was terminated on the

pretext of an enquiry. Therefore, the plaintiff filed

a suit seeking declaration that the termination of

his primary membership by order dated 30.5.2020

:: 3 ::

is null and void and for a consequential relief of

permanent injunction. In the suit, the plaintiff

sought an interim order of temporary injunction to

restrain the defendant from his making use of the

facilities in the club. The said application having

been allowed by the court below, the defendant is

in appeal.

3. I have heard Sri P.B.Raju, learned counsel

for the defendant/appellant and Sri S.V.Giridhar,

learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent.

4. It is the argument of Sri P.B.Raju that

once the plaintiff’s membership with the club was

terminated, he is no longer a member and he

cannot enter the club premises and make use any

of the facilities. The plaintiff admits termination

of his membership and also issuance of notice to

him.

His

earlier

suit

O.S.8215/2019

was

dismissed. In the said suit, he questioned the

order of suspending his membership. In view of

:: 4 ::

the dismissal of the earlier suit and termination of

his membership subsequently, the impugned order

has the effect of putting the clock behind. The

learned trial court judge has given some reasons

that are not sustainable at all and that they

indicate total non-application of mind by the trial

court judge. The allegation against the plaintiff

was that he caused hurt to another member

namely Gangadhar Reddy with a tissue paper

holder on 16.10.2019. In the written statement,

at one place it is stated that the plaintiff assaulted

Gangadhar Reddy with a holder of tissue paper and

at another place, with the wooden napkin holder.

This is all the discrepancy. But according to the

trial

court,

defence

thus

taken

by

defendant is totally inconsistent and therefore the

plaintiff has not been able to make out a prima

facie case. This is a wrong finding. Moreover,

enquiry was held following the procedure and

there was no violation of principles of natural

:: 5 ::

justice. The plaintiff has clearly admitted in the

plaint itself that the enquiry was sham, this

assertion shows that enquiry was held. It is also

his another argument that the impugned order

tantamount to decreeing the suit itself. In this

view the impugned order is to be set aside.

5. Sri S.V.Giridhar argued that though the

plaintiff’s

earlier

suit

was

dismissed,

in

present suit he has questioned the termination of

his membership with the defendant club. The

main allegation made by the plaintiff is that the

termination order was passed without holding the

enquiry properly. The plaintiff was not notified to

participate in the enquiry. Enquiry was not at all

conducted in the presence of plaintiff and thus

there was violation of principles of natural justice.

Merely

for

reason that the

plaintiff

has

questioned the order of termination, it does not

mean that he admitted that the whole enquiry was

:: 6 ::

conducted in a proper manner. The defendant has

misinterpreted the notice given to the plaintiff.

What the plaintiff refers to is, the notice that he

received to appear b