1
PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO COM.CA.No.36 OF 2022 Between Jayaprakash Rao Dhote, S/o. Satyanarayana Rao Aged about 46 years, Occ : Business, R/o. Skill Aracade Apartment, D.No.8-3-981/122 Flat No.302, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad - 500 073, Telangana State.
... Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff AND M/s. Abhishek Agarwal Arts LLP Rep. By Abhishek Agarwal S/o. Tej Narayana Agarwal, Aged about 41 years, Occ : Business, Having it registered office at H.No.207, Pushyami House, Filmnagar, Jubilee Hills, Road No.76, Hyderabad - 500 096, Telangana State and 6 Others.
... Respondents/Respondents/Defendants The Court made the following:
2PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO COM.CA.No.36 OF 2022 J U D G M E N T : ( Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice J. Sreenivas Rao ) This appeal arises out of the order dated 01.09.2022 passed by the District Judge, for trial and disposal of Commercial Disputes, Hyderabad in I.A.No.401 of 2022 in COS.No.31 of 2022 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking direction to restrain the respondent No.5 from disbursing the profit share of the respondents 1 to 3 from the profits of the film "The Kashimiri Files", pending disposal of the suit.
2. For the convenience, the parties herein will be arrayed as petitioner and respondents, as they were arrayed before the trial court.
3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows : 3.1. According to the petitioner, he claims to be a senior professional in Indian Film Industry since 1998 and that he distributed various films in different cities and having good reputation in media industry. Respondents 1 to 3 involved him in 3 PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022 the process of production of movie, "The Kashimiri Files" and requested him to continue in the production of the film for the purpose of negotiations with respondents 4 and 5 so that they can obtain best commercial terms. The petitioner alleged that the respondents 1 to 3 have requested his services for ancillary services; viz., negotiations, entering into memorandum of understandings, production agreements, liaisoning between the respondents and to participate in the preparation of release plan for the film and to facilitate and supervise all the marketing and promotional activities in respect of the film. Respondents 1 to 3 have agreed to pay remuneration equivalent to 33% of the profit share that would be received by them from the said film. The film, "The Kashimiri Files" was written and directed by Vivek Ranjan Agnihotri i.e., the designated partner of respondent No.4 and produced by respondents 1 to 3. At the initial request of respondents 1 to 3, the petitioner rendered services and interacted with respondent No.4 and brought all of them to a common platform for production of the said film in execution of memorandum of understanding amongst the respondents on 23.10.2019 and it was done at the instance of respondent No.7. 4
PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022 3.2 On 28.10.2019 a meeting was held at the residence of respondent No.2, who had invited him and respondent No.7. In the said meeting, an oral agreement was arrived to get the services of the petitioner on condition of payment of professional charges. Respondents 1 to 3 have agreed to pay 33% of share in their profit sharing out of the said film. On the instructions of respondent No.2, he visited Mumbai on 30.10.2019 with an object to secure the best commercial deal related to the said film and thereafter he made 25 round trips from Hyderabad to Mumbai for negotiations with respondents 4 and 5 and concluded co-production agreement. The petitioner claims that he participated in preparation of the release plan of the said film, facilitated the marketing and promotional activities, for which the respondents 1 to 3 have booked flight tickets for his round trips from Hyderabad to Mumbai. 3.3 On 31.10.2019 on the instructions of respondents 1 to 3, the petitioner attended the meeting with the representatives of respondent No.5 and on 01.11.2018 the respondent No.2, 7 and the petitioner attended the meeting with the director of the film, who is the designated partner of respondent No.4. On 26.09.2020 film co-production agreement was arrived between respondents 1,4 and 5 with the efforts of the petitioner, wherein the co-production agreement reconcile profit share in the ratio of 40:30:30 among the respondents 5 PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022 1, 4 and 5. It is stated that the memorandum of understanding was executed between the respondents 1 to 3 and respondent No.4 and the novation agreement was sought to have been executed on 22.03.2021. The petitioner claims that in the e-mail dated 29.09.2021 sent by respondent No.6 on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 to the respondent No.4 it was requested to give credit of "co-producer" of the said film to him. He further claims that there are multifarious exchange of e-mail communications between him and the respondents, which demonstrates his significant involvement in production of the said film and the said film hit box office and derived huge profits. 3.4 While things stood thus, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents 1 to 3 have breached the oral agreement and removed the title of the petitioner from the screen titles as "co-producer" and have not paid the agreed share profit to him. He got issued a legal notice on 26.4.2022 demanding respondents 1 to 3 to pay 33% of his share out of their profit share. Respondents 1 to 3 have replied for the said notice denying the claim of share of the petitioner but agreed to reinstate his name as "co-producers" and they admitted the involvement, right and entitlement of the petitioner's profit share of 1% only out of total cost of production as commission. 6
PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022 3.5 Now the main grievance of the petitioner is that the profit derived out of the said film production, the respondent No.5 has right to release the profit shares to the respondents 1 to 4 and if the said share amount is released to them, it is very difficult for him to get his 33% share. The petitioner claims that he got prima facie case and balance of convenience is in his favour. He filed COS.No.31 of 2022 seeking rendition of accounts and payment of his share. Pending disposal of the main suit, he has also filed a petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondent No.5 from disbursing the profit share of respondents 1 to 3 towards the profit of the film "The Kashimir Files".
4. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed their counter denying the averments made in the petition. They contended that the petitioner has suppressed and mis-represented the facts and he has not approached the court with clean hands. According to them, the petitioner filed the suit only to harass them and gain unlawfully by abuse of due process of law, as the claim is unbelievable and without any basis. It is contended that there is no written agreement and he narrated his case to cause an impression that there is a written agreement between the parties. Admittedly, he has not invested a single pie in the movie but 7 PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022 claimed 33% share in their profit, which is absurd and illegal. Though number of e-mails were exchanged between them are filed but there is no mention in any of the emails regarding agreement and payment of share in the profit.
5. According to respondents 1 to 3, when there is an investment of several crores of rupees in production of a film, his contention of oral agreement cannot be considered. It is contended that the petitioner is entitled to only 1% of commission on the agreement value if he has worked as broker but he is not entitled to payment of the suit amount. He claims to be a senior professional and got good reputation in Indian Film Industry is false and not true. As a broker, it was the duty of the petitioner to mediate between them and respondents 4 and 5 and the e-mail correspondence filed by him would show that he was not involved in the production, marketing and promotional activities. Respondents 1 to 3 denied that they have orally agreed to remunerate him the amount equivalent to 33% in their profit share.
6. It is contended by respondents 1 to 3 that the memorandum of understanding dated 23.10.2019 was between them and 8 PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022 respondent No.4 and by the said date there was no involvement of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner used to visit Mumbai for his production work regarding several movies and for all such work he is entitled to only commission but not profit. Respondents 1 to 3 have denied that the petitioner has not facilitated execution of memorandum of understanding, co-production agreement, novation agreement dated 22.3.2021.
7. They admitted that they agreed to show the name of the petitioner as "co-producer" but contends that in lieu of this commission his name is to be included as "co-producer" and intention behind this is to get him some publicity in future to gain more business. Respondents 1 to 3 maintain that the name of the petitioner as "co-producer" is never removed from the screen titles of the film.
8. It is further contended that the petitioner does not have prima facie case and balance of convenience does not lie in his favour and that he cannot seek for an order against third parties for not paying percentage in partnership business and the question of granting injunction does not arise, as the petitioner is 9 PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022 only their agent or broker and nothing more. Therefore, respondents 1 to 3 sought for dismissal of the petition, as the petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands.
9. Respondent No.4, who is designated partner filed separate counter wherein he stated that Vivek Ranjan Agnihotri is the director of the film "The Kashimiri Files". According to him, it took three years for production of the movie and it is stated that in the process of making film, the petitioner played a pivotal role by bringing all the respondents into the common understanding on the production of the film. It is stated that the petitioner was representing the respondents 1 and 2 throughout the period of making film and Vivek Ranjan Agnihotri has several meetings with the petitioner along with other respondents for negotiations, memorandum of understanding, execution of production agreement and novation agreement. He further stated that the petitioner has participated in all the meeting and negotiations, as he was representing the respondents 1 and 2 and there were e- mail communications between the petitioner and the respondents.
10
PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022
10. One Mr.Akshay Mahadik, filed counter-affidavit as well as additional counter on behalf of Respondent No.5, wherein it was averred that M/s.Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai, entered into an agreement on 19.10.2020 with respondents 2 and 2 and it was allegedly stated that the petitioner was a broker for the purpose of co-ordinating execution of project film on behalf of respondent No.1. In the additional counter, it is stated that the petitioner played a pivotal role by bringing all the respondents into a common understanding for production of the film. It is averred that as per records, on the instructions of respondent No.2, the petitioner/plaintiff and respondent No.7 as representatives of the respondents had meeting at their Andheri Office on 31.10.2019 and it is further stated that the petitioner conducted various meetings in connection with the production of the film "The Kashimiri Files" and in the additional counter also it is stated that the petitioner had rendered his service in the release of the said film.
11. Respondent No.6 filed the counter denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. According to him, he is co-producer of the feature film "The Kashimiri Files", 11 PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022 which was produced by the respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5. It is averred that the petitioner acted as a broker for the respondents 1 to 3 for the project "Raja Raja Chora" and upcoming film "Karthikeya-2". It is averred that the respondent No.2, who approached the petitioner to help the respondent No.1 in execution of co-production agreement. According to him, it is averred that towards the contribution of the service of the petitioner, it was agreed that his name would be shown as co-producer in the screen titles. Respondent No.6 emphatically denied that there is any profit sharing agreement between the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2. He claims that he also co-produced films and there is no profit share agreement between him and the producer. Respondent No.6 further contended that the petitioner works as a broker and he is not entitled to claim any share in the project. He denies the oral agreement between the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 3 and as per the understanding between the petitioner and the respondent No.1, the petitioner worked as broker for execution of the co- production agreement and in return the respondent No.1 agreed that the name of the petitioner would be shown as the 12 PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022 co-producer in the screen titles of the movie. Since the film derived huge profits, the petitioner has been claiming 33% of share in the profit of the respondents 1 to 3. He further contended that only to arm twist the respondents 1 to 3, the petitioner filed the present petition. It is further stated that the petitioner did not approach the court with clean hands and that the respondent No.7 is the text book example of a colluding party in the suit. According to respondent No.6, there is no balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner; and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. Whereas the respondent No.7 filed his counter stating that the petitioner has facilitated the respondents 1, 2 and 4 for entering into the memorandum of understanding dated 23.10.2019 for production of the film "The Kashimiri Files". It is stated by the respondent No.6 that at the request of respondent No.2, the petitioner has agreed and it is also admitted that the respondents 1 to 3 have agreed to pay an amount equivalent to 33% of profit share to the petitioner towards his remuneration. It is further stated that on 31.10.2019, the petitioner visited Mumbai to secure the commercial deal with respondents 4 and 5. 13
PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022 According to respondent No.6, the oral agreement took place in his presence in the residence of respondent No.2.
13. To prove the main substratum, Exs.P1 to P9 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. Ex.P-1 is the letter vide Ref.No.NN/029/2022-23, dated 26.04.2022, Ex.P2 is the reply to the legal notice dated 28.04.2022, Ex.P3 is the letter vide Ref.No.NNCO/57/2022-23 dated 05.05.2022, Ex.P4 is the copy of memorandum of understanding dated 23.10l.2019, Ex.P5 is the copy of e-security bank and e-treasury receipt dated 10.10.2020, Ex.P6 is the novation agreement, dated 22.03.2021, Ex.P7 is the copy of e-mail, dated 21.11.2019, Ex.P8 is the copy of statement of date of flight journey and Ex.P9 is the copy of e-mail, dated 16.04.2022. On behalf of the respondents, no documents were marked.
14. On the basis of the rival contentions, the trial court framed the following point for consideration :
Whether the court can grant temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent No.5 to restrain it from making the payments of money to the respondents 1 to 4 ?14 PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022
15. After hearing both sides and considering the documentary evidence marked on behalf of the petitioner, the trial court dismissed the petition filed under Order-XXXI, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC held that the petitioner could not establish the prima facie case as far as remuneration or that balance of convenience in its favour and there does not exist any possible irreparable loss and injury. While dismissing the said petition on merits, the trial court gave its findings as follows :
i) The petitioner is not able to place enough material now to prove the existence of oral agreement regarding remuneration.
ii) The affidavit of the respondent No.7 cannot be relied on now.
iii) The petitioner did not invest money for production of the film, whereas the respondents 1 to 3 invested money. On this count, the balance of convenience is in favour of the respondents 1 to 4 and not in favour of the petitioner.
iv) Since the claim of the petitioner is only a money claim, he can, on proof of his entitlement, realize the same with interest when an injury if any can be compensated by money and interest thereon, it will not considered as irreparable loss or injury.
v) The petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to the temporary relief as claimed by him and he shall be let to go to prove his entitlement to suit claim on trial.15
PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022
16. The case of the petitioner is that he is a Senior Professional in Indian Film Industry since 1998 and acquired good reputation in media industry. Respondents 1 to 3 involved him in the production of movie known as "The Kashimiri Files" and they requested him to render his services in the production of the said film, in making negotiations with respondents 4 and 5, entering into memorandum of understanding, production agreements, liaisoning between the respondents etc., and they agreed to pay remuneration equivalent to 33% of the profit that would be received by them from the said film. The said picture was written and directed by the designated partner, who is none other than respondent No.4 Mr.Vivek Ranjan Agnihotri and produced by respondents 1 to 3.
17. On the request of the respondents 1 to 3, the petitioner rendered his services and interacted with respondent No.4 and at the instance of respondent No.7 the petitioner got execution of memorandum of understanding amongst the respondents on 23.10.2019. It is the case of the petitioner that a meeting was held on 28.10.2019 at the residence of respondent No.2, wherein 16 PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022 respondent No.2 invited respondent No.7 and t here an oral agreement was arrived to get the services of the petitioner on condition of payment of professional charges and the respondents 1 to 3 have agreed to pay 33% of profit share as would be received by the respondents 1 to 3 from the film as professional service charges rendered by the petitioner and also offered to pass on title credit in the film to the petiioner as "co- producer" for which the petitioner has accepted the said offer and rendered his services till the release of the said film. It is the further case of the petitioner that the entire agreement entered into between the respondent No.2 and petitioner was witnessed by the respondent No.7.
18. On 30.10.2019, the petitioner visited Mumbai to get commercial deal of the said film. He made as many as 25 round trips between Hyderabad and Mumbai for negotiations with respondents 4 and 5 and facilitated to conclude co-production agreement. Under the co-production agreement, the profit sharing ratio agreed between the parties therein is in the ratio of 40:30:30 among the respondents 5, 4 and 1 respectively. It is also the case of petitioner that he facilitated the execution of 17 PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022 memorandum of understanding among the respondents 1 to 3 and executed with respondent No.4 under the name and style of "Vivek Agnihotri Creates" and thereafter the petitioner facilitated the respondents to execute a novation agreement on 22.3.2021, as the respondent No.4 stepped into the shoes of "Vivek Agnihotri Creates".
19. On 29.09.2021, the respondent No.6 sent an e-mail on behalf of respondent No.1 informing the respondent No.4 that the petitioner should be given title credit of co-producer in the credit list of the film. Accordingly, the petitioner's name was duly mentioned as co-producer in the credit list of the film. While things stood thus, when the said film was released, the respondent No.5 informed that the said film made good amount of profit. In consequence thereof, petitioner requested the respondents 1 to 3 for his 33% profit share out of 30% of the profit share which would be received by the respondents 1 to 3 from the respondent No.5 as per agreement. The respondents 1 to 3 denied any such agreement on sharing the profits. On such denial, the petitioner issued a legal notice on 26.4.2022 calling upon the respondents 1 to 3 to reinstate his name as co-producer 18 PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022 in the publicity material, trailer teaser and poster etc., and also make payment of 33% out of 30% of their profit share to be received from respondent No.5. When the respondents through reply notice dated 28.4.2022 denied the claim of the petitioner but accepted to reinstate his name as "co-producer" and also to reimburse the expenses. The petitioner instituted the suit before the court below for rendition of accounts of the film and to declare the petitioner's entitlement to 33% profit share out of 30% profit share of respondents 1 to 3 to be disbursed by respondent No.5 and also for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to pay the same to him. Pending disposal of the suit, the petitioner filed application under Order-XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction seeking direction to restrain the respondent No.5 from disbursing the profit share of the respondents 1 to 3 from the profits of the film "The Kashimiri Files".
20. On the other hand, the respondents 1 to 3, respondent No.4, respondent No.5, respondent No.6 and respondent No.7 have filed separate counters. In the counter of respondents 1 to 3 they have specifically denied the claim of the petitioner on all 19 PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022 material aspects, which are mentioned hereinabove in the preceding paras of this judgment. Whereas the respondents 4, 5 and 6 have stated in their separate counters that the appellant had rendered his services as broker/agent for execution of co- production agreement and the respondent No.6 specifically stated in his counter that he has also co-produced films and there is no profit share agreement between him and the producer. Respondent No.6 contended that the petitioner is not entitled to claim any share in the project and he denied the oral agreement between the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 3. Whereas the respondent No.7 alone has stated in his counter that the appellant has facilitated the respondents 1, 2 and 4 for entering into the memorandum of understanding dated 23.10.2019 for production of the aforesaid film. Respondent No.7 further averred in his counter that respondents 1 to 3 have agreed to pay an amount equivalent to 33% profit share to the petitioner towards his remuneration.
21. In support of the contention of the appellant-petitioner, Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel strongly contended firstly that the court below without considering the 20 PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022 contentions raised by the petitioner and also the documentary evidence placed on record has erroneously dismissed the application filed under Order-XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction; He further contended that the seventh respondent filed his counter wherein it is specifically said that the petitioner has facilitated the respondents 1, 2 and 4 along with him for reaching the memorandum of understanding on 23.10.2019 for the production of the film "The Kashimiri Files", and he further contended that the second respondent has taken services of the petitioner in making the film project "The Kashimiri Files" and the second respondent also agreed to pay the profit share amount equivalent to 33% to the petitioner out of the profit share that would be received by the respondents 1 and 2 from the said film as professional charges for the services rendered by the petitioner.
22. Secondly, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the counter filed by the seventh respondent, it is stated that the oral agreement entered into by the petitioner and the respondents had taken place in his presence. The court below did not consider the counter-affidavit filed by the seventh respondent without 21 PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022 there being any bona fide reason dismissed the application filed by the petitioner seeking to grant temporary injunction.
23. The learned Senior Counsel thirdly contended that similarly the court below has not considered the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents 4, 5 and 7 wherein they specifically stated that the petitioner rendered his services for the production of the film "The Kashimiri Files" and the oral agreement held between the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 3 and the petitioner is entitled to receive 33% share in the profits from the profits derived out of the said film by the respondents 1 to 3.
24. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the un-reported judgment of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in K. Ravi Prasad Reddy and G.Gridhar (CMA.Nos.43 and 45 of 2021, dated 25.01.2022), wherein the Division Bench of A.P. High Court after hearing both sides had dismissed the appeals holding that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act does not operate as a bar to the grant of temporary injunction under Oerder-39, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, in the discretion of the trial court, on fulfilment of pre-conditions for 22 PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022 grant of temporary injunction, which are settled in law, restraining alienations as well. It was further held that the order granting temporary injunction does not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction and calls for no interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
25. Per contra, Sri Shyam S. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 vehemently contended that the suit filed by the petitioner itself is not maintainable either in law or on facts in-as-much-as the petitioner has not produced any iota of evidence in support of his claim and in the absence of such evidence the petitioner is not entitled to claim any equitable relief for grant of temporary injunction on the premise that the petitioner has not satisfied the pre-requisite condition as enumerated under Order-XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. The court below after considering the contentions of the respective parties and also the documentary evidence marked under Exs.P-1 to P-9 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner by assigning cogent reasons. He would further seek to contend that viewed from any angle, the petitioner has failed to establish prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour, 23 PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022 therefore, the court below has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order-XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in a proper perspective and there are no valid and bonafide grounds which call for any indulgence of this court. That, the court below has not committed any irregularity or illegality in passing the order under challenge before this Court.
26. Heard both sides, perused the grounds of appeal, the order of the court of first instance and the documentary evidence let-in by the petitioner.
27. On re-appreciation and recapitulating the facts, documentary evidence marked on behalf of the petitioner, findings of the trial court and the order impugned in this appeal as well and after hearing the rival contentions of the parties to the appeal, the following points that predominantly emerge for consideration are as follows:
(i) Whether the appellant is entitled for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondent No.5 in disbursing the profit share of respondents 1 to 3 from the profits derived out of the film "The Kashimiri Files" and that whether the appellant satisfied the ingredients of Order-XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC ?
(ii) Whether the order passed by the court below is sustainable in law ?24 PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022
28. Admittedly, the petitioner filed suit COS.No.31 of 2022 seeking for following reliefs, (i) to direct the defendant No.5 to render accounts of the film "The Kashmir Files" by way of producing profit and loss account and also to produce the profits share amount of defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3; (ii) to declare that the plaintiff is entitled 33% profit share out of 30% of defendant Nos.1,2 and 3 share of the profits of the film "The Kashmir Files" be disbursed by the Defendant No.5 and direct the defendants No.1, 2 and 3 to pay the same to the Plaintiff; and (iii) to direct the defendants No.1, 2 and 3 to reimburse the expenses of Rs.10 Lakhs incurred by the plaintiff towards expenses of boarding, lodging and local transport during the period of production and till release of the said film "The Kashmir Files". Along with the suit the petitioner filed I.A.No.401 of 2022, for grant of injunction restraining the respondent No.5 from disbursing the profit share of the respondents 1 to 3 from the profits of the film "The Kashimiri Files", pending disposal of the suit.
29. The trial court taking into consideration of the pleadings, evidence on record and after hearing both the parties dismissed the application by giving cogent reasons holding that the 25 PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022 petitioner has failed to satisfy the ingredients for grant of injunction as required under Order-XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC i.e., prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury.
30. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued the matter elaborately, we are constrained to point out at the very outset that the scope of this appeal is limited to the questions that could be consider in an application under Order- 39, Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. We are conscious of the fact that any conclusion arrived at on the documentary evidence placed before this court would definitely have an impact on the trial of the suit. Therefore, we make it clear that any observation made in this judgment should not be taken as a conclusive pronouncement on the rights of the parties, which are to be decided after a complete trial. At this stage, this Court cannot go into the rights of the parties, which are to be decided during the course of trial.
31. The learned Senior Counsel placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati in CMA.Nos.43 and 45 of 2021. These CMAs arose out 26 PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022 of I.A.No.334 of 2017 in O.S.No.108 of 2017 seeking a decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 11.3.2014 against the first defendant directing him to perform his part of the agreement by receiving the balance sale consideration in respect of the suit schedule property and in case of his failure to do so, to enable the plaintiff/first respondent to get the same performed through the process of court and to deliver vacant possession of the property. While dismissing the appeals, the co- ordinate bench of the AP High Court held in paragraph 14 of the said judgment dated 25.01.2022 that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act does not operate as a bar to the grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, in the discretion of the trial court, on fulfilment of pre-conditions for grant of temporary injunction, which are settled in law, restraining alienations as well. The principle laid down in the above judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand as the petitioner is seeking rendering of accounts and claiming 33% profit share basing upon the oral agreement and the same has to be established after full-fledged trial.
27
PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022
32. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further contended that till disposal of the main suit, 33% profit share as claimed by the petitioner be kept intact in fixed deposit under separate account by way of restraining the respondent No.5 from disbursing 30% profit share of the respondents 1 to 3 derived from the profits of the film "The Kashimiri Files". This Court only analysed the prima facie case and tested the order of the trial Court on the principles governing the grant or refusal of temporary injunction under Order-XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the right of the appellate court to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court. While considering the limited scope of the appeal, this Court do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court. The trial Court took into consideration the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as other High Courts, dealt with the matter comprehensively and succinctly classified its opinion in the impugned order. On thorough analysis of facts and evidence on record, the trial court has rightly refused to grant temporary injunction by dismissing the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. We do not find any illegality 28 PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022 or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court for this Court to set aside the same, take a different view and grant interlocutory relief, prayed by the petitioner.
33. Viewed from any angle, this Court do not think that any case has been made out by the appellant so as to enable this Court to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned District Judge in dismissing the application for injunction and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
34. However, we make it clear that the court below shall dispose of the main suit as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the impugned order passed in I.A.No.401 of 2022, dated 01.09.2022, and as well by this court.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO ____________________________ JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO 10-02-2023 I S L/Skj.
29
PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022 30 PNR, J. & JSR, J.
CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022 + HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO PRE DELIVERED FAIR JUDGMENT IN COM.CA.NO.36 OF 2022 (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice J. Sreenivas Rao) Date : 10-02-2023.
ISL/Skj.