JUDGMENT : H.P. SANDESH, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court invoking Order VII Rule 11 of CPC wherein it is contended that no cause of action for the suit. The Trial Court passed an order on I.A.No.1 in coming to the conclusion that on 13.03.2019, notice is given to the plaintiff by defendant and on 17.03.2019, reply is given to the defendant by the plaintiff. On 22.03.2019, V.G.Chandrashekar has also given his letter in which he has mentioned about the notice given by defendant asking about the incident. On 22.03.2019 apology letter is given by plaintiff. On 27.03.2019 the letter is given by defendant closing the complaint. Thereafter, in May-2019 plaintiff issued letter to the defendant stating that the defendant has taken unilateral decision about the issue. It is necessary to notice that in the letter dated 22.09.2019 given by V.G.Chandrashekar, he mentioned about the notice given by the defendant to him also and that gives an indication that there is no unilateral decision by the defendant. But, he has issued notice to even V.G.Chandrashekar and his reply is received. Further, it is brought to the notice of this Court that Shivamogga City Club is registered body and defendant is its Secretary. The presence of Secretary or Vice President at the time of incident is not stated in the plaint. When he was not personally present at the time of incident, any damage caused by the defendant against the plaintiff cannot be ascertained from the records. All the major allegations are against V.G.Chandrashekar who has allegedly caused damage to the reputation of the plaintiff. The defendant is admittedly Secretary of the Club and his duty to issue notice to both parties when incident of this nature takes place. Accordingly, notice is issued and that itself will not make himself personally liable for damages to the plaintiff. Further, if issuance of notice itself is erroneous, the post of Vice President and Secretary will not serve any purpose as they will not have any control over the activities that takes place in the Club. No doubt, in the plaint, it is stated that defendant was hand in glove with the V.G.Chandrashekar. Further, if issuance of notice itself is erroneous, the post of Vice President and Secretary will not serve any purpose as they will not have any control over the activities that takes place in the Club. No doubt, in the plaint, it is stated that defendant was hand in glove with the V.G.Chandrashekar. If that is the case, the defendant would have not received any reply from V.G.Chandrashekar, but, plaintiff himself has produced reply given to Secretary and invoked Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and allowed the same. The same is challenged before the Appellate Court in R.A.No.38/2023. The Appellate Court also while considering the material on record, taken note of the damages is claimed particularly in paragraph Nos.16 and so also essentially suit of the plaintiff is for damages and compensation against the defendant and also taken note of that plaintiff is permanent member of Club and also in the plaint, it is pleaded that the defendant is Secretary of the said Club. The Secretary and Vice President have powers to make enquiry with respect to untoward incident which may takes place. The Appellate Court having taken note of this and in paragraph No.20 comes to the conclusion that letter dated 22.09.2019 which is given by V.G.Chandrashekar wherein he has mentioned about the notice given by the defendant to him and it shows that there was no unilateral decision by defendant. He has issued notice to even V.G.Chandrashekar and his reply is also given and also discussion was made with regard to perusal of the materials on records, Club is also registered. The presence of Secretary or Vice President at the time of incident is not stated in the plaint. When he was not personally present at the time of incident and when he has not personally defamed the reputation of the plaintiff, there is no meaning in saying that defendant in his personal capacity is liable to pay damages to the plaintiff. The Appellate Court having considered the grounds which have been urged, accepted the case of the defendant and confirmed the order. 3. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, present second appeal is filed before this Court. The Appellate Court having considered the grounds which have been urged, accepted the case of the defendant and confirmed the order. 3. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, present second appeal is filed before this Court. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant that First Appellate Court is not justified in not forthcoming the position of law that while considering the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(A) of CPC, only the averments of the plaintiffs have to be looked into and at the same time, whatever the defence placed by the defendant cannot be considered. The counsel in support of his argument would vehemently contend that it is settled law that the defence cannot be taken while considering the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. This Court also secured the records of the Trial Court in O.S.No.537/2019 and taken note of the plaint averment as well as defendant’s written statement, particularly in paragraph Nos.16 and 17. The counsel also referring these contentions would vehemently contend that both Courts have committed an error. 4. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that reading the plaint averments that in the plaint, it is specifically pleaded with regard to the untoward incident has taken place. Further, the counsel would vehemently contend that in an individual capacity suits are filed and not in the capacity of the Secretary or Vice President. When such being the case, the Trial Court and Appellate Court rightly taken note of the material on records. Hence, question of admitting and framing any substantive question of law does not arise. 5. Having heard the appellant’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent and there is a concurrent finding. However, taking into note of the grounds which have been urged, matter requires re-consideration involving of following substantive question of law: 1) Whether both the Courts have committed an error in invoking Order VII Rule 11 of CPC in coming to the conclusion that there is no cause of action? 2) What Order? 6. Having perused the plaint, in the plaint, it is specifically pleaded with regard to the incident has taken place. 2) What Order? 6. Having perused the plaint, in the plaint, it is specifically pleaded with regard to the incident has taken place. The suit is filed for the relief of damages claiming the damages of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff by way of damages and directing the defendant to pay the interest at the rate of 24% on the amount of Rs.50,000/- from the date of issuance of legal notice and specifically pleaded that incident was taken place. In paragraph Nos.6 and 7 and also pleaded that subsequently between the Secretary and Vice President untoward incident was taken place and issued notice dated 13.03.2019 by the Committee. The plaintiff has placed his reply dated 17.03.2019 before the Committee re-iterating of what Sri.V.G.Chandrashekar has made an attempt to manhandling of his no fault. The plaintiff has also brought to the notice of defendant and the Vice President and the other members by virtue of his reply dated 17.03.2019 that the entire episode of the incident has been well recorded in the CC T.V camera installed in the counter of the Club which unfolds as to the illegal act of Sri.V.G.Chandrashekar and as to how V.G.Chandrashekar pushed the plaintiff even without fathoming that the plaintiff is stepping to the cadre of senior citizen and also in the Paragraph No.16 narrated with regard to the incident is concerned and also mentioned the cause of action for the suit arose on 09.03.2019 and when the image of the plaintiff has been garnished by the act of Sri.V.G.Chandrashekar and so also stated with regard to the issuance of notice and reply. 7. Having considered the averments of the plaint and the same is with regard to the incident which has taken place and also the exchanges of words which have been taken place and the same is narrated in paragraph Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 and issuance of notice and reply was given and cause of action is stated. The order passed by the Trial Court in paragraph No.8 of the Trial Court while allowing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, taken note of averments made in paragraph No.16 wherein specific defence was taken that in the individual capacity, the defendant has made as party to the proceedings and also discussion was made in paragraph No.8 with regard to the exchange of notices. However, comes to the conclusion that indicates that there is no unilateral decision by the defendant, but he has issued notice to even V.G.Chandrashekar and his reply is also received and the same is nothing but a discussion with regard to the merits of the case and also an observation is made that further it is brought to the notice of this Court that Shiavamogga City Club is registered body and defendant is Secretary and the presence of Secretary or Vice President at the time of incident is not stated in the plaint. When he was not personally present at the time of incident, any damage caused by the defendant against the plaintiff cannot be ascertained from the records and this also with regard to merits of the case and not discussed with regard to the order about cause of action is concerned and entire discussion is not in respect of the cause of action is concerned and the same is in respect of merits of the case. 8. The First Appellate Court having re-assessed the reasons given by the Trial Court and jumped into the conclusion that Trial Court has not committed any error. In paragraph No.20 made an observation that there was no any unilateral decision by the defendant, the same is affirmed by the Appellate Court since he has issued the notice even to V.G.Chandrashekar and his reply is received. In paragraph Nos.21 and 22 also taken note of the very same similar set of facts, the defendant is made as a party in his individual capacity and said defence is also taken in the written statement of the defendant in paragraph No.16. Further observation is that the presence of Secretary or Vice President at the time of incident is not stated in the plaint. Further observation is that the presence of Secretary or Vice President at the time of incident is not stated in the plaint. It is nothing but re-assertion of the reasons given by the Trial Court in the order and Appellate Court also failed to take note of to discuss anything about the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC with regard to the cause of action is concerned and only in paragraph No.22 discussion was made that the plaint is not maintainable as there is no cause of action against this defendant and the decision was taken only with regard to the merits of the case whether the suit is maintainable in an individual capacity or ought to have been made as party to the proceedings in the capacity of President or not, that cannot be considered in the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and the same is with regard to the merits of the case. When such being the case, the very scope of invoking of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, that too in respect of cause of action is concerned, whether the plaint discloses cause of action to be taken note of and in Paragraph No.16 of the plaint, cause of action is stated. Apart from that allegation is made with regard to the issuance of notice and reply is given and the same is also a matter of consideration during the course of trial. Hence, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court and Appellate Court committed an error without examining the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. It is also settled law that the Trial Court cannot discuss anything about the contents of the written statement while passing such an order and both the Trial Court and Appellate Court committed an error. Hence, the records of the plaint and written statement are very clear with regard to the scope is concerned and the same is not discussed and hence, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. Hence, I answer the substantive question of law as affirmative. 9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Second appeal is allowed. Hence, I answer the substantive question of law as affirmative. 9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Second appeal is allowed. ii) The impugned order passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.537/2019 dated 29.03.2023 invoking Order VII Rule 11(A) of CPC and also the confirmation made by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.38/2023 dated 29.01.2024 are set- aside. The Trial Court is directed to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law.