SHRI RISHI RAJ Vs. SHRI ASHOK JI LALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.8.2006 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 24.12.2004 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Rishi Raj seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 07.7.1992 entered into between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 has been dismissed; his prayer for permanent injunction had also been denied.

(2.) PLAINTIFF was engaged in the business of distribution, exhibition and exploitation of cinematographic films; he had negative and telecasting rights of various pictures under the name and style of Raj Rishi Films which was his sole proprietorship concern. Defendant no.1 was the producer of film LAL CHUNARIA under the banner of Tipu Films. Vide agreement dated 07.7.1992 entered into between the plaintiff and defendant no.1, defendant no.1 had agreed to transfer the negative rights of U-matics of the said picture for a sum of Rs.85,000/- to the plaintiff. Rs.5,000/- was to be paid on signing and the balance sum of Rs.80,000/- was to be paid on the transfer of the negative rights and handing over of U-matics of the said film on the terms and conditions contained therein. PLAINTIFF had made the initial payment of Rs.5000/-. On request of the defendant, plaintiff made further payments of Rs.50,000/-, in instalments to the defendant no.1. PLAINTIFF learnt that the defendant no.1 had also signed a similar agreement with Bharat Shah; on his own efforts plaintiff was able to persuade Bharat Shah to cancel the said agreement with the defendant no.1; an amount of Rs.7500/- was paid by plaintiff to Bharat Shah on this account on behalf of the defendant; this sum was also included in the sum of Rs.50,000/- which had been paid by plaintiff to defendant no.1. It is stated that the defendant no.1 had failed to perform his part of the agreement; plaintiff was always willing to do so; suit for specific performance was accordingly filed.

(3.) IN appeal the judgment of the trial court was affirmed and it was noted that no effort was made by the plaintiff to get the agreement executed; he had not showed his willingness to perform his part of the contract. The judgment of the trial court was upheld.