- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20717 RFA No. 68 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2017 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: JEFFREY SEBASTIAN FERNANDEZ SON OF LATE SEBASTIAN FERNANDEZ, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT CARE OF MR. JOHNSON E.MATHEW, NO.63, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS, MUNIRAMAMMMA BLOCK, GANGANAGAR EXTENSION, R.T.NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 032. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHETAN CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KASHYAP.N.NAIK., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CATHOLIC CLUB AN ASSOCIATION REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1961, AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.22, MUSUEM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 025. AND REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS PRESIDENT. 2. MR. ALTON GERALD VIEGAS SON OF MICHEAL VIEGAS, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, PRESIDENT OF 1ST RESPONDENT ASSOCIATION, HAVING HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT NO.22, MUSEUM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 025. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NIDHISHREE.B.V., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & 2) Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20717 RFA No. 68 of 2017 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULES 1 AND 2 OF THE CPC. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT Sri.Chetan Chandrashekar, counsel on behalf of Sri. Kashyap N. Naik, for the appellant, and Smt.Nidhishree.B. V., counsel for respondents 1 and 2, appeared in person. 2. This is an appeal from the Court of LXVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-67). 3. The plaintiff was a 'Donor Member' of the Catholic Club. In 2001-2002, he relocated from Bengaluru to Calgary, Canada. In February/ March 2015, he relocated to Bengaluru and approached the Club's office seeking clarification regarding his membership. He was informed by the club that his membership had been terminated on account of non-payment of dues. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a letter on 25.03.2015 to the second defendant and sought certain clarification regarding his membership. He also issued a legal notice on 14.07.2015 and 15.10.2015. However, the club restricted the plaintiff's right to enter and use the facilities of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20717 RFA No. 68 of 2017 the club. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit. After the issuance of the suit summons, the defendants filed the written statement and urged several contentions and prayed for the dismissal of the suit. The defendants applied I.A. No. III under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC for rejection of the plaint. The plaintiff filed objections to the application. The Trial Court vide order dated 04.11.2016 allowed the application and rejected the plaint. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the above appeal on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Appeal. 4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the appeal papers and the records with utmost care. 5. The short point that requires consideration is whether the order of the Trial Court requires interference. 6. The issue falls within a narrow compass and relates to the rejection of the plaint. The defendants applied for Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC. Mr. Cyrus Mehta, the authorized representative of defendant No.1, has sworn to a declaration of facts. The defendants sought rejection of the plaint on three grounds, namely the suit was barred by the law of limitation, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20717 RFA No. 68 of 2017 non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of parties. I have perused the order passed by the Trial Court with care. The Supreme Court has settled the law that the limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. Except for stating that the suit is barred by limitation, the impugned order does not provide any reason in particular for the contention taken by the defendants regarding non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. Needless to say, whenever the order is made on rejection of the plaint, the Court must meet the contentions urged by the parties and pass a reasoned order. This is absent in the present case. Hence, the matter requires a remand. 7. The order dated 04.11.2016 passed by the LXVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-67) on I.A.No.III in O.S.No.9665/2015 is set aside. The plaint is restored and the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the application afresh. The parties are represented by their respective counsel; hence, they are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 26.06.2025, without awaiting any notice from the Court. The Trial Court is hereby directed to dispose of the interlocutory application within three months. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20717 RFA No. 68 of 2017 8. Resultantly, the Regular First Appeal is allowed and remanded. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1