WS NEELA PRODUCTIONS Vs. KUMARA SWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS in O. S. 378/94 on the file of the Subordinate judge's Court, Ernakulam are the petitioners. They filed the suit on the averment that the plaint schedule films belong to the first plaintiff partnership firm which has the right of exhibition and exploitation of those cinematographic films. It is stated that first defendant who retired from partnership firm has no right to deal with the schedule films and he is unauthorisedly dealing with the films to the exclusion of the plaintiffs. Therefore plaintiffs want to restrain the first defendant from dealing with any of the films scheduled to the plaint and defendants 2 to 4 from entering into any transaction with the first defendant regarding those films. It was also averred that 4th defendant is negotiating with the third defendant regarding the exhibition of one of the films. . While defendants 1 to 3 are having a place of business outside the territorial limits of Subordinate Judge's Court, ernakulam, the 4th defendant is having place of business at Ernakulam.

(2.) BEFORE filing the suit, he sought permission of the subordinate Judge, Ernakulam under section 20 (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to prosecute the suit in that court. The leave was so sought for because defendants 1 to 3 were having their residence and place of business elsewhere. Court granted permission to the plaintiffs to institute the suit. The suit was thus entertained and taken on file. Along with' the plaint, plaintiffs moved I. A. 627/94 for a temporary injunction restraining the third defendant from exhibiting or exploiting any of the films belonging to the plaintiffs. Court below granted an ex-parte interim injunction. On getting notice of the injunction, defendants entered appearance and objected to the order. They also raised a contention that the court has no territorial jurisdiction-to entertain the suit. By the impugned order data! 21-10 -94 the learned Sub Judge refused leave and dismissed I. A. 627/94 which was one filed for leave under section 20 (b) of the Code. That, order is under challenge.

(3.) INJUNCTION granted by this court in C. M. P. 2746/95 will continue to be in force for author period of one month. The respondents, if so advised, can move the trial court and that court will be at liberty to vacate, modify or alter the same in accordance with law. C. R. P. is allowed in the above terms. . .