K K SUBRAMONIAM Vs. M P SREENIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am afraid the suit is misconceived. Though the maintainability of the suit was challenged by the first defendant successfully in the Trial Court, the court below has held that the suit as framed would lie and the plaintiff is entitled to seek the reliefs which he has claimed in the suit.

(2.) Plaintiff has styled himself as the manager of one Prabha Talkies, a theatre exhibiting cinematograph films at Tellicherry. According to him the proprietor of the concern is his sister inlaw and on her behalf he is managing the business. First defendant is the proprietor of one Lotus Talkies engaged in the business of exhibition of cinematograph films for which purpose he applied for licence to the Tellicherry Municipality and obtained the same. The Municipal Commissioner of the Tellicherry Municipality is the second defendant. Plaintiff bad objected to the issue of licence to the first defendant on several grounds including one that the distance between the two theatres was less than what is prescribed by the rules. This objection of the plaintiff was not looked into and therefore the order is characterised as illegal and void. The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from exhibiting cinematograph films in his theatre.

(3.) A contention is raised by the first defendant as to the sustainability of a plea of improper grant of license in a civil suit. According to him a suit for injunction, as here, cannot be maintained by another theatre owner on the ground that the requirements of the rules have not been properly complied with in the matter of the issue of licence to an exhibitor. Another objection taken is that the plaintiff is only the manager of Prabha Talkies and therefore he has no locus standi to file a suit. It is also contended that even otherwise there has been substantial compliance with the requirements of the rules.