(1.) THE respondent herein filed C.S. No. 1420 of 1994 on the file of this Court for a declaration that he has become the owner of the negatives of the picture titled "Pattu Vadhiyar", (Tamil colour-35 mm.) as per the letter of arrangement dated 10-1-1992 entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant and for consequential mandatory injunction against the third defendant laboratory. THE respondent filed an application in O.A. No. 7049 of 1994 in which he prayed for permission to deal with the negatives of the picture "Pattu Vadhiyar". THE Court passed an order on 22-12-1994 holding that the respondents shall be entitled to have the editing, dubbing and re-recording rights of the picture titled "Pattu Vadhiyar" at the third respondent laboratory and that the respondent was directed to return the prints of the picture in "Pattu Vadhiyar" to the third defendant immediately after the dubbing and re-recording was over.
(2.) THAT order remained undisturbed. The respondent filed O.A. No. 975 of 1994 for appointment of a Receiver to take over the production of the picture lying with the third defendant laboratory and to complete the same and release it for realising the dues of the respondent. In that application no counter affidavit was filed by the appellant herein who is the first defendant in the suit. THAT application was disposed of on 2-3-1995 by the following order: "Heard the applicant as well as the respondents. The applicant has been authorised to complete the picture and as per the direction of this Court, he has also completed the picture. Unless the picture is released no amount can be realised and the interest of the financier as well as the laboratory cannot be safeguarded. In the above circumstances, the applicant is appointed as Receiver to release the picture "Pattu Vadhiyar" after paying the amount due to the laboratory as well as to the second respondent. The collection as well as the amount received by the Receiver from the distributors is to be deposited into court in the account of this suit."
(3.) AFTER the reopening of the Court, the matter was heard and a detailed order has been passed by the learned judge on 21-7-1995. The learned judge has found that the contention of the appellant that the order dated 2-3-1995 was passed without hearing his counsel is unfounded and that the said order was passed only after hearing both parties. In fact, in the order dated 2-3-1995 it is mentioned. "Heard the applicant as well as the respondent." Learned Judge has also pointed out that in the counter affidavit filed by the appellant in the Court on 22-3-1995 there was no representation that the order passed on 2-3-1995 was passed without hearing him. Learned judge has taken note of the fact that the affidavit bears the date 20-2-1995 as if it was prepared on that date, but it was filed in the Court on 22-3-1995 only by which time the order of appointment of Receiver has already been made and that the appellant could well have taken the plea that his Counsel was not heard before the order was passed. The reasons given by the learned judge for up holding the order dated 2-3-1995 was that it was passed after hearing both Counsel and are acceptable and we do not find any justification whatever to interfere with the same.