A H BHAT Vs. K R PICTURE COMBINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred by the first defendant in O.S. 1612 of 1984 on the file of the V Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. It is directed against the common order passed on I.As. 4 and 5 made by the first defendant.

(2.) The plaintiff has filed this suit claiming exclusive right of distribution of Kannada film under the title, having advanced a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- to the first defendant and having entered into an agreement acquiring such right. It is stated from the Bar that the temporary injunction sought for by the plaintiff, which was refused by the trial Court, has been granted by this Court in the miscellaneous first appeal preferred by the plaintiff. It is thereafter that the applications I.As. 4 and 5 were made calling for further particulars and production of documents in order to enable the first defendant to file his written statement.

(3.) From the nature of particulars called for, I am satisfied that the defendant is calling for the evidence of the plaintiff. What would constitute the written statement must be the statement of the case for the defendant and it can only be the particulars, which are an amplification of the allegations in the plaint. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge has taken the correct view that the defendant is not entitled to those particulars. A written statement is a statement of the case for the defendant. If certain allegations are not clear in the plaint, then the defendant is enabled to call for particulars to amplify or clarify the allegations, as the case may be. If the plaintiff has asserted that he has paid Rs. 2,40,000/- at different times to the defendant, in order to acquire the rights, it is a fact which he must prove to succeed in the suit. Various receipts said to be in possession of the plaintiff is proof of such assertions. They cannot be called particulars, which are required to enable the defendant to file his written statement. Similarly there are also documents, which are in possession of the plaintiff, which he must produce to prove his assertions. If he fails to produce the same at appropriate time, he would, fail in his suit. Therefore, it has no nexus to the filing of the written statement. Thus there is no merit in this revision petition.