Termination of membership without due process violates principles of natural justice; trial essential for contested factual claims.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2. These two appeals are filed against the order passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.295/2020 dated 11.12.2020 and O.S.No.265/2021 dated 16.07.2021, respectively in allowing the I.A. filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC for rejection of the plaint and confirmation of the said order by the First Appellate Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court in a suit filed by the plaintiff challenging his termination from the membership of the Club dated HC-KAR 29.02.2020, it is specifically contended that the termination made by the respondent Club is erroneous and the same is not in compliance with the principles of natural justice. It is also specifically contended that the termination is also bad in law and even extracted the procedure to be adopted in terminating him and the same is not in terms of the byelaw. The byelaw of the Club under Rule 10 is also extracted in the plaint and also contend that the same is not in consonance with the byelaw, only Rule 10(f) to be invoked if it is complied under Rule 10(e), that there must be 3/4^th majority while terminating him and not having the majority of 3/4^th while passing such an order of termination as contemplated under sub clause (e) of byelaw No.10. Hence, filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration to declare that the impugned notice of termination of the plaintiff from the defendant’s Club dated 29.02.2020 is in gross violation of the byelaws of the Club and the same is null and void and also to declare that the act of the defendants jointly and severally in terminating the plaintiff under the notice of termination without suspending him first is in gross violation of the byelaws of the Club and as against the very basic principles of natural justice and also sought for damages and also sought to restrain the defendant HC-KAR from terminating the plaintiff, who is a permanent member vide membership No.T015 of the Mysore Sports Club, permanently by a decree of permanent injunction.

4. In both the suits i.e., O.S.No.295/2020 and O.S.No.265/2021, similar grounds are urged. The respondent herein filed an application before the Trial Court under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC contending that there is no cause of action to initiate the suit. The plaintiff has impugned the notice of termination being the cause of action for the suit, which is contrary to the facts of the case, wherein termination order has been passed by defendant No.1. The plaintiff has made only six of the committee members as parties and not all the members and hence the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is also contended that the suit is barred by law in view of Rule 10(e) of the byelaws of defendant No.1 Club, wherein the termination of the membership can be appealed within 30 days from the date of termination order dated 29.02.2020. Without exhausting the remedy, the plaintiff has filed the suit.

5. This application was resisted by filing an objection statement by the plaintiff contending that cause of action HC-KAR does exist when the defendants have not adhered to the byelaws that govern the conduct of all the parties. For rejection of plaint only the plaint averments can be considered and not the defence of the defendants. The decision of defendant No.1 does not sustain as appeal, when it does not adhere to the provisions of byelaws. Before terminating his membership, no cause of action has been issued, no enquiry has been conducted, he was not suspended pending enquiry, he was never asked to appear before the Managing Committee, no order of the Managing Committee of