M/S. ASHWAMEDH PRODUCTION A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM THROUGH ITS PARTNER, MR. NILESH DATTARAM SAWANT Vs. SHRI RAJESH SHIVRAM KOLAMBKAR, SHRADDHA THEATRE AND KISHORE B. CHAUGULE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT -original Plaintiff being aggrieved by order dated 13 May 2013, passed by the learned District Judge, Thane whereby his Application for interim injunction is rejected by holding that there is no prima facie case; and no balance of convenience in his favour. The Defendant would suffer irreparable loss in case relief is granted. Plaintiff -Appellant claimed that Respondent No. 1 has assigned rights of drama and its script "Yeducation" for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/ - and accordingly, received the consideration amount by a cheque dated 14.2.2012. The agreement was executed and notorised on 27.11.2012. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 not denying the execution of page -1 and page -3 of the agreement. The bone of contention is page -2 and clauses mentioned therein. The issue is also about its validity and effect. Respondent No. 1 averred that he never appeared before any Notary for notorization.

(2.) THE missing signs on page and its contents, at this stage, cannot be overlooked at the instance of Respondent No. 1/Defendant No. 1 -writer of the script. This is specifically when in a reply the case is not in dispute that Defendant No. 1 -Respondent No. 1 received from time to time the consideration to the extent of 38 shows @ Rs. 500/ - per show. There is nothing on record to show that any objection raised in writing by Respondent No. 1 not to conduct and/or hold drama and/or not to proceed with other shows. For the first time by hand -written communication dated 29.3.2013, an intention was expressed, as he was not earning any amount for 90 days and as there was no drama staged by the Appellant -Plaintiff and; therefore, intimated about the permission to a new Director to use the script.

(3.) THE notorization and/or registration of such document is again a matter, just cannot be concluded finally in favour of either of the parties. The effect of such vague and unclear agreement even if any, cannot be the basis to deny the claim and the rights of Appellant -Plaintiff. Admittedly, 38 shows of the drama based upon the script had been performed which according to me goes to the root of the matter, so also that no written objection raised at the relevant time by the concerned.