JUDGMENT : Aggrieved by the rejection of his application for temporary injunction, the plaintiff in O.S.No.3797/2021 has preferred the above appeal. 2. The defendant/Bangalore Turf Club Limited is a club licensed under the Karnataka Race Course Licensing Act of the Government of Karnataka. It is governed by the Memorandum and Articles of Association. For the purpose of conducting race meetings, club has framed the Rules of racing. Those rules provide for registration of horses, conducting horse race, issuing licence to the trainers, jockeys etc. 3. The club organizes the horse race according to its calendar of events. As per those Rules and the Articles of Association, the business of club is managed by the members of the committee. Out of 14 members of the committee, 9 shall be the stewards and 5 shall be committee members. 6 out of 9 stewards and 4 out of 5 committee members shall be elected as club members at the Annual General Meeting. The Club has the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City and Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department as Ex-Officio members (Stewards) of the Managing Committee of the club. As per Article 40(m) of the said Articles of Association, the Committee has the power to frame the rules and regulations for conducting racing, to alter or amend or suspend the said rules and regulations. 4. The appellant/plaintiff was licensed as jockey by the defendant club in the year 2002. On 05.02.2021, the respondent-club conducted horse race called “Stayers Trial Stakes” race (race 118). The appellant participated in the said race. He rode the horse by name Salazaar. In the said race, the appellant took the third post. On 09.02.2021, Stipendiary Steward of the Club called the appellant for enquiry on the ground that the appellant did not permit his mount to run on its merits. 5. On 10.02.2021 charge sheet No.693 dated 05.02.2021 was issued against the appellant alleging that he did not permit horse Salazaar to run on its own merits and thereby committed breach of Rule Nos.159 (a) and (b) of BTC Rules of Racing (for short ‘the Rules’). On 15.02.2021, the appellant submitted his defence statement to the Articles of Charge. 6. On 19.02.2021, the Stewards of the Club (‘Stewards Club’ for short) conducted the enquiry. In the said enquiry, the statements of one Irfan Ghatala, the trainer of the horse, Stipendiary Stewards and the appellant were said to be recorded. On 15.02.2021, the appellant submitted his defence statement to the Articles of Charge. 6. On 19.02.2021, the Stewards of the Club (‘Stewards Club’ for short) conducted the enquiry. In the said enquiry, the statements of one Irfan Ghatala, the trainer of the horse, Stipendiary Stewards and the appellant were said to be recorded. On 25.02.2021, the Stewards Club held that charges against the appellant were proved and disqualified him from 05.03.2021 to 30.04.2021. It was further ordered that if he applies for jockey’s license, such application shall be considered after 05.07.2021. He was also fined to a sum of Rs.50,000/-for contravention of Rules 159(a) and (b) of the Rules. The proceeding/order of disqualifying was served on the appellant on 01.03.2021. 7. Rule 47 (a) of the Rules provides for an appeal against such order of the Stewards Club. Rules 47 to 49 of the Rules provide for the procedure for hearing such appeals. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Board of Appeal against the order of his disqualification. 8. The Board of Appeal by it’s order dated 26th March 2021 held as follows: “Thereafter, the Board of appeal came to the conclusion that there has not been a proper appreciation of the evidence presented during the course of enquiry. The conclusion and findings on each of the charges framed must be arrived at independently and recorded accordingly. The evidence presented must be weighed by applying their mind independently. The Board of Appeal therefore remands the entire case back to the Stewards of the Club for a fresh enquiry and disposal by arriving at clear findings as to the contravention of Rule No.159 (a) and (b), independent of the findings of the Stipendiary Steward.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. Board of Appeal had stayed the Stewards Club’s order of punishment pending appeal and while remanding the matter extended that order further till consideration of the matter. On such remand, the Stewards Club took up the matter and vide their communication dated 28.03.2021 to the members of the Board of Appeal reiterated their earlier order. In the said communication, they said that as per Rule 47(h) of the Rules, the Board of Appeal can remand the matter only if there is fresh evidence. They further said that if there is no such fresh evidence, Board of Appeal cannot remand the matter, therefore, they are resubmitting the records reiterating the earlier order. 10. In the said communication, they said that as per Rule 47(h) of the Rules, the Board of Appeal can remand the matter only if there is fresh evidence. They further said that if there is no such fresh evidence, Board of Appeal cannot remand the matter, therefore, they are resubmitting the records reiterating the earlier order. 10. Thereafter, the Board of Appeal again took up the appeal for hearing, conducted the appeal proceedings on 30.06.2021 and 06.07.2021. The Board of Appeal said to have examined the trainee, veterinary officer, the appellant and Stipendiary Steward. Ultimately, the Board of Appeal passed the order dated 14.07.2021 indicting the appellant in the following terms: “The Board of Appeal of Bangalore Turf Club Ltd., at its meeting held on 6th July 2021 considered the appeal dated 22nd February 2021 addressed by Jockey Suraj Narredu against the decisions of the Stewards at their meeting held on 19th February 2021. The Board considered the evidence produced by the Stipendiary Stewards, the concerned Trainer, the Veterinary Officer and Jockey Suraj Narredu. After repeated viewing of the video recording of the race, detailed deliberation and using their wisdom, experience and in their opinion, the Board members arrived at a unanimous decision and held Jockey Suraj Nareddu “guilty as charged” in this matter. The Board decided: (i) Reject the appeal filed by Jockey Suraj Nareddu. (ii) The period of withdrawal of his Jockey’s Licence to be enhanced from four months to six months (In accordance with Rule No.49(e) of the BTC Rules of Racing) and the revised withdrawal period of his Jockey’s Licence shall be with effect from 7th July, 2021 to 6th January, 2022 (Both days inclusive) and fine him a sum of Rs.50,000/-for Contravention of Rule No.159 (a) & (b) of the BTC Rules of Racing on his mount SALAZAAR. (iii) To forfeit Rs.11,800/-(Inclusive GST) paid by Jockey Suraj Nareddu towards the Appeal fee.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. In the second order of the Board of Appeal the license was suspended from 07.07.2021 to 06.01.2022 for a period of six months and fined him to Rs.50,000/-for contravention of Rule 159 (a) and (b) of the Rule. The Board of Appeal also forfeited the appeal fee paid by the appellant. 12. In the second order of the Board of Appeal the license was suspended from 07.07.2021 to 06.01.2022 for a period of six months and fined him to Rs.50,000/-for contravention of Rule 159 (a) and (b) of the Rule. The Board of Appeal also forfeited the appeal fee paid by the appellant. 12. The appellant filed O.S.No.3797/2021 before LXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-70) against the respondent for declaration that the findings of the meetings of Stewards of the defendant company in charge sheet number 693 disqualifying him from 05.03.2021 to 30.04.2021 and the order of the Board of Appeal dated 14.07.2021 are void-ab-initio and nonest in the eye of law. He further sought permanent injunction against the respondent/defendant or anybody claiming through them from interfering with his profession as Jockey in the defendant company/club. 13. The challenge to the order was on the following grounds: (i) He had not committed any misconduct; (ii) Horse Salazaar had some medical problems and therefore was lugging and hanging in; (iii) The proceedings conducted against him by the Stewards Club and Board of Appeal were violative of principles of natural justice and unfair; (iv) He was not supplied with the required documents and was not given proper opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and put forth his defence; (v) The witnesses were not examined in his presence or hearing. 14. In the suit, he filed I.A.No.1 for temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from implementing the final verdict of the order of Board of Appeal and Stewards Club. The respondent contested the said application. 15. The trial Court on hearing both side, by the impugned order rejected the application on the ground that the Court should not interfere in the domestic affairs of the club or the company and the appellant/plaintiff has failed to make out prima-facie case. The said order is under challenge in the above appeal. 16. 15. The trial Court on hearing both side, by the impugned order rejected the application on the ground that the Court should not interfere in the domestic affairs of the club or the company and the appellant/plaintiff has failed to make out prima-facie case. The said order is under challenge in the above appeal. 16. Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s.Holla and Holla, learned advocates on record for the appellant seeks to assail the impugned order on the following grounds: (i) The records of the proceedings of the Stewards Club and Board of Appeal show that the witnesses were not examined in the presence of the appellant; (ii) The appellant was not supplied with the required documents to make out his defence; (iii) Even as per the statements recorded by the Stewards Club and the Board of Appeal, the horse was lugging and hanging in; (iv) The records clearly show that there was violation of principles of natural justice and the enquiry was not fair; (v) Though voluminous records were produced before the trial Court to demonstrate that the enquiry was not fair and there was violation of principles of natural justice, the trial Court did not refer to any of those documents. Therefore the impugned order is perverse; (vi) Even though in the judgments relied on by the trial Court it was held that in the domestic enquiry, there shall be least interference, but in very same judgments, it was held that if such enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, then the Court can interfere with such orders; (vii) On the Board of Appeal remanding the matter to the Stewards Club, the appellant was not heard and the Stewards Club reiterating its order flouted discipline of hierarchy; (viii) The Board of Appeal at the first instance though held that the evidence was not properly appreciated, again based on the same evidence indicted the appellant. That itself shows that the order was not fair; & (ix) When the order is perverse, this Court can interfere with such orders in the Appellate jurisdiction. 17. In support of his contentions, he relies upon the following judgments: 1. Virupaxappa Vs. Revanappa Siddappa Ganigar, 1975 (2) KAR.L.J.96 2. Vadivel Mudaliar Vs. Pachianna Gounder, AIR 1974 MAD 87 3. Neon Laboratories Limited Vs. Medical Technologies Limited, (2016) 2 SCC 672 4. Edara Haribabu Vs. 17. In support of his contentions, he relies upon the following judgments: 1. Virupaxappa Vs. Revanappa Siddappa Ganigar, 1975 (2) KAR.L.J.96 2. Vadivel Mudaliar Vs. Pachianna Gounder, AIR 1974 MAD 87 3. Neon Laboratories Limited Vs. Medical Technologies Limited, (2016) 2 SCC 672 4. Edara Haribabu Vs. Tulluri Venkata Narasimham, (2016) 2 SCC 640 5. Atlas Cycle (Haryana) Limited Vs. Kitab Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 573 6. T.P.Devar Vs. Lodge Victoria NO.363 S.C.Belgaum, AIR 1963 SC 1144 7. BCCI v. Netaji Cricket Club, (2005) 4 SCC 741 8. Jagdish Chander Sachdeva Vs. Royal Bombay Yacht Club, 2004 SCC Online Bom 872 9. Sajeda Nihal Ahmed Vs. Malegaon Municipal Corporation, Malegaon, 2005 (1) Mh.L.J. 87 10. Meenglas Tea Estate Vs. Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719 11. Union of India Vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., 1992 Supp (1) SC 443 12. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhopal, AIR 1961 SC 182 (Const. Bench) 13. Dy. Director, Land Acquisition Vs. Malla Atchinaidu, (2006) 12 SCC 87 14. Dwaraka Das Vs. State of M.P. and Another, 1999 (3) SCC 500 15. State Bank of India Vs. S.N.Goyal, (2008) 8 SCC 92 16. Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited, 2008 (14) SCC 171 17. Raghunath Thakur Vs. State of Bihar, (1989) 1 SCC 229 18. Payyavula Vengamma Vs. Payyavula Kesanna, AIR 1953 SC 21 19. State of Madras Vs. K.C.P. Ltd. AIR 1969 SC 348 20. State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Chintaman Sadashiva Waishampayan, AIR 1961 SC 1623 21. Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority, (2015) 3 SCC 49 18. Per contra, Sri S.S.Naganand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri S.Sriranga, learned Counsel on record for the respondent justifies the impugned order on the following grounds: (i) It is settled proposition of law that the Civil Court shall not interfere with the order passed in the domestic enquiry; (ii) Stipendiary Steward was also competent to hold preliminary enquiry and on satisfaction in the preliminary enquiry that the appellant has committed misconduct, the charge sheet was issued; (iii) Stewards Club conducted the proceedings giving opportunity to the appellant and found him guilty. The Board of Appeal gave further opportunity to the appellant. The Board of Appeal gave further opportunity to the appellant. On giving such opportunity, at three levels it was opined that the appellant was guilty of committing breach of Rules 159(a) & (b) of the Rules; (iv) The Civil Court cannot interfere with such concurrent findings; (v) The appellant during domestic enquiry did not raise the ground of violation of principles of natural justice before the Board of Appeal. He was given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and he did so; (vi) The Veterinary Officer’s report did not indicate any abnormality in the condition of the horse Salazaar; (vii) The trial Court’s order does not suffer any perversity or illegality. Therefore this Court in the Appellate jurisdiction cannot interfere with the same; & (viii) The domestic enquiry proceedings in question are inquisitorial and not quasi judicial proceedings. Therefore the strict principles or technicalities of evidence cannot be applied to such proceedings. 19. In support of his contentions, he relies upon the following judgments: Krishna Moorthy.J Vs. Bangalore Turf Club, 1975 SCC Online Kar 105 2. Purna Investments Ltd. Calcutta v Southern Steelmet and Alloys Ltd. Bangalore, ILR 1977 Karnataka 1365 3. Sri Gowrishankara Swamigalu Vs. Siddhaganga Mutt, I.L.R. 1989 Kar. 1701 4. Zenit Mataplast Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 SCC 388 5. T.P.Daver Vs. Lodge Victoria, (1964)1 SCR 1 : AIR 1963 SC 1144 6. Sadashivanagar Club Vs. Nataraj, ILR 1993 Kar 2313 7. Secretary, Bangalore Turf Club, Bangalore Vs. Prakash Srivatsava, 1995 SCC Online Kar 118 8. The Secretary, Bangalore Turf Club Vs. Kishan Srivastava, ILR 1996 Kar 1905 9. Maclean Vs. The Workers’ Union, (1929) 1 Ch. 602 10. Lennox Arthur Patrick O’Reilly Vs. Cyril Cuthbert Gittens, AIR 1949 PC 313 11. Dr.Narayan Vs. Dr.R.Vaidyanath, AIR 1975 Karnataka 117 20. This Court thoroughly considered the rival contentions of both parties and the materials placed before it. 21. Having regard to the rival contentions and the materials on record, the question that arises for consideration is “whether the impugned order of the trial Court suffers the vice of perversity, arbitrariness or capriciousness?” 22. Dr.Narayan Vs. Dr.R.Vaidyanath, AIR 1975 Karnataka 117 20. This Court thoroughly considered the rival contentions of both parties and the materials placed before it. 21. Having regard to the rival contentions and the materials on record, the question that arises for consideration is “whether the impugned order of the trial Court suffers the vice of perversity, arbitrariness or capriciousness?” 22. Though both side relied on several judgments with regard to the scope of interference by the Appellate Court in an order passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and the cardinal principles of law in exercising powers under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the basic principles enunciated in all the judgments are as follows: (i) The order granting or rejecting the relief of temporary injunction being discretionary that cannot be interfered in appeal unless it is shown that the order suffers the vice of perversity, arbitrariness or capriciousness. (ii) Non-consideration of the relevant materials produced before it and not adhering to the basic legal principles for grant or rejection of the relief of injunction amounts to perversity. (iii) In considering the application for temporary injunction, the following conditions shall be satisfied: (a) The applicant has made out prima-facie case. Prima-facie case means prima-facie case of legal right of the applicant and injury to such right. That the case of the plaintiff is not vexatious and there is case to go for trial; (b) Balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant. (c) If temporary injunction is not granted, the applicant will be put to irreparable injury; 23. In the light of such principle, this Court has to see whether the trial Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff/appellant has failed to make out prima-facie case. 24. The order challenged in the suit being an order of punishment in the domestic enquiry, scope of interference by the Civil Court is very limited. For such interference it should be shown that the Disciplinary Authority had adopted an unfair mode to reach such conclusion, order is fundamentally and inherently wrong. Breach of principles of natural justice is one form of unfairness. 25. For such interference it should be shown that the Disciplinary Authority had adopted an unfair mode to reach such conclusion, order is fundamentally and inherently wrong. Breach of principles of natural justice is one form of unfairness. 25. This Court in Prakash Srivatsava’s case referred to supra relied upon by Sri S.S.Naganand, learned Senior Counsel as well as by the trial Court though held that there should not be hasty interference in the domestic trials, it was further held that the orders which are inherently and fundamentally wrong are exception to the general rule. It was further held that barring small category of cases wherein straightaway demonstrated that the procedure or the orders passed are so wrong, so illegal or so inherently perverse that they would have to be set aside at later point of time, interference in this class of proceedings would hardly be justified particularly at the interim stage. 26. In para 8 of the judgment in Atlas Cycle (Haryana) Ltd. referred to supra and relied on by Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel it was held that in domestic enquiry, delinquent shall be expelled only in the manner provided by the Rules. It was further held that though the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is limited in such cases and it cannot sit as Court of appeal over the decision of the Disciplinary Authority, the Court can set aside the order of such body if such body acts without jurisdiction or it does not act in good faith or acts in violation of principles of natural justice. It was further held that strict observance of rules of principles of natural justice must be followed before passing any adverse order against the person in such domestic enquiry. 27. In para 4 of the judgment in Meenglas Tea Estate’s case referred to supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the enquiry was vitiated because it was not held in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It was further held the elementary principle is that a person required to answer the charge must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which accusation is supported. He must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put relevant questions by way of cross-examination as he desires. It was further held the elementary principle is that a person required to answer the charge must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which accusation is supported. He must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put relevant questions by way of cross-examination as he desires. It was further held that, that is the barest requirement of an enquiry of such character and the said requirement must be substantially fulfilled before the result of the enquiry can be accepted. 28. It is settled principle of law that proceedings to prove charge of an offence or indiscipline shall take place in the presence or hearing of the accused/delinquent. 29. In the charge sheet issued to the appellant, the respondent itself has enlisted the following as his rights in inquiry: (i) The defendant must have adequate time for preparation of his defence; (ii) The defendant himself in person or be represented by any person nominated by him not being the practicing lawyer, examine the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of the witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions; (iii) The right to be present throughout the entire hearing except during deliberation. 30. Therefore as per the charge sheet itself, the appellant had the right to be present through out the entire hearing except deliberations. The proceedings of Stewards Club dated 19.02.2021 show that when trainer Irfan Ghatala was called in, the appellant was made to sit outside. Later the said witness Irfan Ghatala was asked to withdraw and after his withdrawal, the appellant was called in and he was questioned. Therefore prima-facie the Stewards Club infringed the principles of natural justice and the right conferred by the defendant itself on the plaintiff to be present during the entire hearing in the proceedings. 31. What is noticeable is that the Board of Appeal in it’s order dated 26.03.2021 found that there was no proper appreciation of evidence presented during the course of enquiry and directed the Stewards Club to hold fresh enquiry. Reading of para 3 of the said order indicates that the entire case was remanded back to the Stewards Club for fresh enquiry and to give finding independent of the findings of Stipendiary Stewards. 32. Reading of para 3 of the said order indicates that the entire case was remanded back to the Stewards Club for fresh enquiry and to give finding independent of the findings of Stipendiary Stewards. 32. Even as per the Rules framed in the defendant’s club, the Stewards Club is lower to the Board of Appeal in the hierarchy in such domestic trial. After such remand, Stewards club did not adhere to the remand order and did not record any fresh evidence. Being the authority lower in rank to Board of Appeal in the domestic enquiry process, the Stewards Club should have adhered to the Board’s order. But Club sent back the matter to the Board as correctional measure. It appears to be beyond the competence of the Stewards Club, to question the wisdom of the Board of Appeal. 33. The Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as long back as in the year 1961 in Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. referred to supra in para 8 of the judgment in this regard held as follows: “8. We think that the learned Judicial Commissioner was clearly in error in holding that no manifest injustice resulted from the order of the respondent conveyed in his letter dated March 24, 1955. By that order the respondent virtually refused to carry out the directions which a superior tribunal had given to him in exercise of its appellate powers in respect of an order of assessment made by him. Such refusal is in effect a denial of justice, and is furthermore destructive of one of the basic principles in the administration of justice based as it is in this country on a hierarchy of courts. If a subordinate tribunal refuses to carry out directions given to it by a superior tribunal in the exercise of its appellate powers, the result will be chaos in the administration of justice and we have indeed found it very difficult to appreciate the process of reasoning by which the learned Judicial Commissioner while roundly condemning the respondent for refusing to carry out the directions of the superior tribunal, yet held that no manifest injustice resulted from such refusal.” (Emphasis supplied) 34. The above legal principle enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court binds all the citizens of India and the Stewards Club is not an exception to that. The above legal principle enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court binds all the citizens of India and the Stewards Club is not an exception to that. The Stewards Club sending back the matter to the Board of Appeal without abiding by the order of the Board of Appeal prima-facie shows that the said authority was indifferent to the discipline of hierarchy of the authorities. 35. One more aspect the trial Court failed to notice is that the matter was remanded to the Stewards club to hold fresh enquiry and then pass order. The Stewards club did not find it necessary to summon the appellant and to conduct further enquiry in his presence before holding that the Board of Appeal could not have remanded the matter to the Stewards Club. The Stewards Club resubmitted the records and the Board of Appeal said to have recorded the depositions of Irfan Ghatala trainer of the horse, veterinary medical officer, Stipendiary Stewards and the appellant. The records produced by both side show that the proceedings of the Stewards Club as well as the Board of Appeal were not furnished to the appellant promptly. 36. Rule 47(h) of the Rules provides for the power of the Board of Appeal to suspend the sentence and remand the matter. Rule 49(e) of the Rules provides for the order that may be passed by the Board of Appeal on hearing. Rule 49(c) of the Rules does not provide for the Board of Appeal to record the evidence. Rule 47(h) of the Rules indicates that if the Board of Appeal is satisfied that fresh evidence is forthcoming relating to the matter it shall remand the case to the Stewards of the Club. 37. But on resubmission, in the second round, the Board of Appeal itself records the evidence. Annexure-R8 the proceedings of the Board of Appeal on 30.06.2021 and 06.07.2021 produced by the respondent itself show that when the trainer Irfan Ghatala was examined, the appellant was outside. Later he was called in and asked whether he has any question to the said witness. Since he had not heard what all the witness had deposed, he was put in a situation to cross-examine touching the testimony which was not within his knowledge. That amounts to unfairness and violation of principles of natural justice. 38. Later he was called in and asked whether he has any question to the said witness. Since he had not heard what all the witness had deposed, he was put in a situation to cross-examine touching the testimony which was not within his knowledge. That amounts to unfairness and violation of principles of natural justice. 38. The Board of Appeal at the first instance based on same material held that the findings of the Stewards Club in appreciating the evidence was not proper and the matter has to be decided independent of the opinion of the Stipendiary Stewards. But while passing second order, which was under challenge in the suit, the Stipendiary Steward’s evidence was considered. 39. All the above facts and circumstances go to show that prima-facie there was no adherence to the principles of natural justice and the enquiry was not fair and proper. As already pointed out, what is required to be tested in such cases is not the decision reached, but the means adopted to reach such decision. The trial Court in the impugned order did not refer to and discuss all the above said documents and failed to consider them. 40. Further in the impugned order, the trial Court itself says that the procedure adopted in domestic enquiry has to be decided on trial. That itself indicates that the trial Court found that with regard to fairness of the enquiry, the appellant has made out prima-facie case, but still held that no prima-facie case is made out. Therefore the order of the trial Court is perverse. 41. Though the trial Court’s order is too lengthy, much of that is devoted to the repetition of the rival contentions of the parties. The trial Court has devoted only last few paragraphs for the reasoning of the order. Even in applying the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court with regard to the scope of interference in the order in the domestic enquiry, the trial Court overlooked the principle that if there is violation of principles of natural justice, fairness and such order suffers inherent and fundamental wrong, there is scope for interference by the Civil Court. On that count also the impugned order suffers vice of perversity. 42. So far as balance of convenience and irreparable injury, admittedly, the appellant is working as Jockey since 2002. On that count also the impugned order suffers vice of perversity. 42. So far as balance of convenience and irreparable injury, admittedly, the appellant is working as Jockey since 2002. If cancellation of license and disqualification continued till disposal of the suit and ultimately if he succeeds in the suit, the opportunities lost by him cannot be revived in his profession as Jockey. If at all ultimately he fails in the suit, it is still open to the defendant/respondent to enforce the order passed by it. Therefore balance of convenience and irreparable injury tilt in favour of the appellant. 43. In para 8 of the judgment in T.P.Daver’s case referred to supra relied upon by Sri S.S.Naganand, learned Senior Counsel the Hon’ble Supreme Court though held that the scope of interference and jurisdiction of the Civil Court is limited in the internal affairs of the club, further held that in such cases the lodge/club is bound to act strictly according to the Rules whether that rule is mandatory or directory. It was further held that if the rules provide for expulsion, the member shall be expelled only in the manner provided by rules. It was further held that the Court can set aside the order of such body, if such body acts in violation of principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction. 44. In Sadashivanagar Club’s case referred to supra relied upon by Sri S.S.Naganand, learned Senior Counsel it was held that the allegations against the accused have to be proved in an enquiry. But in this case, the findings of the enquiry themselves are under challenge. In the very same judgment, it was held that before any punitive suspension is inflicted, the person concerned would necessarily have opportunity of being heard otherwise, the same would violate the principles of natural justice. 45. In the judgment in Secretary, Bengaluru Turf Club’s case referred to supra relied upon by Sri S.S.Naganand, learned Senior Counsel though it was held that the conclusion reached by club cannot be over turned by the Civil Courts, it was further held that the Civil Court has to find out the procedural aspect of the domestic enquiry. It was further held that only unfairness and bias should be the subject matter for interference and not otherwise. In that case, the delinquent had not cooperated with the enquiry proceedings. That is not the case here. 46. It was further held that only unfairness and bias should be the subject matter for interference and not otherwise. In that case, the delinquent had not cooperated with the enquiry proceedings. That is not the case here. 46. In the judgment in Maclean’s case referred to supra relied on by Sri S.S.Naganand, learned Senior Counsel it was held that the Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in a decision of a domestic Tribunal, if in giving its decision the Tribunal has acted honestly in accordance with its own rules and in good faith. 47. In the judgment in Lennox Arthur Patrick O’Reilly’s case referred to supra relied upon by Sri S.S.Naganand, learned Senior Counsel it was held that the Court cannot intervene in the matters of penalty imposed in the domestic enquiry, unless it is shown that the enquiring body exceeds its jurisdiction and not acted in good faith and that the delinquent had every opportunity of putting his case. 48. Though the charge sheet issued by the respondent entitled the appellant to be present during entire hearing in the proceedings, the evidence was recorded behind his back. The facts and circumstances discussed above show that there was violation of principles of natural justice and the Rules set up by the respondent itself. Therefore the judgments relied upon by Sri S.S.Naganand, learned Senior Counsel cannot be justifiably applied to serve the defence of the respondent. 49. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order of the trial Court suffers the vice of perversity and arbitrariness and calls for interference. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the trial Court is hereby set aside. I.A.No.1 filed by the appellant/plaintiff before the trial Court is hereby allowed. The defendant/respondent is hereby restrained from implementing the final verdict of the Board of Appeal dated 14.07.2021 and the Stewards Club dated 19.02.2021 till the disposal of the suit.