Jayaprakash Rao Dhote vs M/S. Abhishek Agarwal Arts Llp And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 695 Tel

                                       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:

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 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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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",

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

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.

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 ?

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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 ?

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

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

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.

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

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.

PNR, J. & JSR, J.

CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022

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.