court in the matter of expulsion of a member of a club. It was observed by the Supreme Court in that case that the source of power of associations like clubs and lodges to expel their members is the contract on the basis of which they become members. The Supreme Court held that the contractual origin of the rule of expulsion has its corollary in the cognate rule that in expelling a member the conditions laid down in the rules must be strictly complied with. The question whether the doctrine of strict compliance with the rules implies that every minute deviation from the rules, whether substantial or not, would render the act of such body void, would depend upon the nature of the rule infringed, namely, whether it is mandatory or directory, which in turn depends upon the purpose for which it is made and the setting in which it appears. The Supreme Court held that once it is found that the club or the association has acted in accordance with rules having regard to the mandatory or directory nature of the particular rule, as the case may be, a civil court thereafter cannot sit in judgment as a court of appeal from the decision of the body. In other words, the jurisdiction of a civil court to interfere with a decision of a private body like the managing committee of a club or gymkhana is limited only in cases where the body acts without jurisdiction or does not act in good faith or acts in violation of the principles of natural justice. Our Court has followed these principles of law enunciated in the case of T.P. Daver (supra) in the cases cited by the learned Counsel for the Defendants. In the case of Ravi Kiran (supra), the court was concerned with an alleged infraction of a rule of expulsion, which, according to the Plaintiff in that case, required a club to supply to the erring member a copy of the report of a disciplinary committee so as to enable the member to show effective cause against the charges framed by the club for his expulsion. After considering the law laid down in T.P. Daver's case (supra), our Court observed that so far as non-supply of copy of the report was concerned, the appellant (the expelled member) had not shown as to what prejudice was caused to him due to non-supply of the copy of the report. The Court noted that the statement of charges supplied to the appellant made known the particulars of the charges against the appellant and the appellant had adequate opportunity to deal with such charges. The Court observed that it was necessary in the matter of domestic inquiry for a delinquent to show as to what was the prejudice caused to him because of deviation from the rule. It is in that
