-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1017 OF 2008 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1239 OF 2008 IN A.O. NO. 1017 /2008 Deepak Jeevandas Doongursee .. Appellant. V/s. Royal Bombay Yacht Club & Ors. .. Respondents. --- Ms.Asmin Wonderwala i/by Mr.S.R.A. Shaikh for the Appellant. Mr. C.U.Singh with Mr.Deepak Ramshete i/by M/s. N.C. Dalal & Co. for the Respondents. --- CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 07th OCTOBER, 2008. DATED : 07th OCTOBER, 2008. DATED : 07th OCTOBER, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. 2. The appellant and respondent no.18 are the members of the respondent no.1 club. The respondent no.18 made a complaint to the President of the respondent no. 1 on 22.06.2007, alleging that on 16.06.2007, the appellant assaulted him with bag and also abused in filthy language. He demanded action against the appellant under rule 42 and 43 of Royal Bombay Yacht Club Rules. -: 2 :- 3. The respondent no. 1 recorded statement of the appellant on 19.12.2007. The statement of the respondent no.18 was also recorded on 20th January,2007. Thereafter, the appellant was given notice dated 15th of May, 2008, calling upon him to offer his explanation as to why action under section 42 of the Club Rules should not be taken against him. In pursuance to this notice, the appellant submitted explanation on 9th of June, 2008. The meetings of the members of the general body of the respondent no.1 were held on 30th May, 2008 and 11th June, 2008. The appellant did not attend both these meetings. The general body of the respondent no.1 ultimately by order dated 17th of June, 2008 prohibited the appellant from using the club premises for a period of one month. 4. The appellant challenged the above said decision of respondent no. 1 by filing the S.C. Suit no. 14455/2008 in the city civil court. The appellant challenged the validity of Rule 42 on the ground that it is violative of the principles of natural justice. The appellant filed notice of motion for injunction restraining, the respondent no.1 from taking any action in pursuance of the order dated 17th of June, 2008. The city civil court by the order impugned, rejected the -: 3 :- appeal and therefore, the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order passed by the respondent no.1 is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was submitted that the appellant was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements are recorded. She also made a grievance that the statement of the appellant was recorded on 19.12.207 and that of respondent no.8 was recorded on 20th January 2008. In short the grievance is made that no opportunity was given. 6. Per contra Mr. C.U.Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 club supported the impugned order. He asserted that there was sufficient compliance of the principles of justice in as much as the appellant was asked to give explanation which he gave and after considering his explanation, the respondent no.1 club passed order which is impugned in the aforesaid suit before the city civil court. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the impugned order, I do not find any merit in the present appeal from order. After recording the statements of the appellant -: 4 :- and respondent no. 18, the respondent no.1 club issued notice to the appellant. The notice was replied by the appellant giving explanation. The general body of respondent no.1 considered the explanation and thereafter passed the order which was impugned in the suit. In my view this fact shows that principles of natural justice are followed. 8. The order of the domestic tribunal, can be challenged on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction or has not been passed in good faith and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. I have already held that the principles of natural justice are followed. It is not the case of the appellant that the respondent no.1 has no jurisdiction to pass the order or same is not passed in good faith. 9. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that no opportunity was given to cross-examine the persons whose statements were recorded is also without any merit. The impugned order in the Appeal from Order as well as the order passed by the respondent no.1 do show that the statements of any witness are not relied upon and therefore, there is no question of giving any opportunity to appellant to even examine the witnesses. Be that as it may, by the impugned order respondent no.1 -: 5 :- club prohibited the appellant from entering in the club for the period of 30 days. There is no dispute that out of this period of 30 days, approximately 3 weeks have already been elapsed. 10. In view of above facts and circumstances, I find no merit in the A.O. and the same is dismissed as such. Needless to mention that the observations made in this order are prima facie objections and made for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal and the trial court shall dispose of the appellant’s suit on its own merit without being influenced by the observations made in this order. 11. Taking into consideration peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and in the interest of natural justice, city civil court is directed to dispose of the S.C. Suit No. 1455 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of nine months from the receipt of this order. Parties to the present appeal from order undertake to co-operate with the trial court and will not seek unnecessary adjournment. 12. In view of the above order, the civil application will not survive and the same is disposed of as such. -: 6 :- (R.V.MORE,J.) .....