KANMANI FILMS Vs. G K KUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against an order, allowing the amendment of the plaint, made by the learned Third Addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore City, on I. A. No. VIII in Original Suit No. 137 of 1967.

(2.) It is necessary to mention a few facts, which are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 16,500/- against the present petitioner. The cause of action for the claim was based on an alleged agreement, according to which, the plaintiff was constituted as "the sole distributor in Bangalore" for the distribution of motion picture entitled "Chemmeen." This picture is said to have been produced by the first defendant Messrs. Kanmani Films. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the first defendant was trying to transfer the right of "distribution rights" to other concerns and manoeuvering to take away the print of the picture from the custody and possession of the plaintiff. In regard to the assessment of the claim, it was contended by the plaintiff that, according to the agreement with the first defendant, he should be paid 15% as commission on the total collections realised by the screening of the picture in question at "Alankar Theatre" in Bangalore. The claim was contested by the first defendant on various grounds. But, what is relevant to note is that he was constituted as the "sole Distributor" of the picture as claimed by the plaintiff.

(3.) In view of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the application for leave to amend the plaint was wanting in bona fides, it would be relevant to refer briefly to some collateral and incidental proceedings between the parties. In this suit, the plaintiff had asserted that he was entitled to a lien on the print of the picture until his claim regarding the commission was fully satisfied. But, he had not claimed any relief specifically in that regard. The plaintiff also filed an interlocutory application asking for the relief of a temporary injunction or alternatively a prohibitory notice directing the defendant not to change his distributorship and not to disturb him from the possession of the print until the claim in the suit was fully satisfied. The said injunction was refused from which an appeal was preferred in M. A. No. 27/67 before the learned District Judge, Bangalore. In the course of the disposal of this application and the appeal, certain observations came to be made relating to his omission to seek the relief of declaration that he was a distributor and in that capacity was entitled to be in possession of the print of the picture. Having failed in these proceedings and possibly taking cue from the observations of the Courts therein to the temporary injunction, he came forward with an application under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. Seeking for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction in regard to his right as a sole distributor of the picture "Chemmeen" for the area of the Mysore State. Incidentally, it is also relevant to mention that the plaintiff subsequent to the filing of this suit entered into an agreement with certain exhibitors and arranged for the screening of the picture at Mysore City. As a consequence of this conduct on the part of the plaintiff, the first defendant instituted O. S. No. 162 of 1967 against the plaintiff and others for various reliefs including the one for recovery of the possession of the print in question. The learned Civil Judge allowed the application for the amendment of the plaint after overruling the objections filed by the first defendant in that regard, Aggrieved by this order, the first defendant has approached this Court in the present revision petition.