ATTAR HUSSEIN Vs. FAZLI BROTHERS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is a distributor of cinema films. THE defendants are producers and distributors of cinema films, this being one of the objects for which they have been incorporated. THE plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendants for the purchase from the defendants of the distribution rights of their social pictures "fashion", "bhai Behen" and "college" for certain territories therein mentioned for a period of six years. THE suit is filed by the plaintiff to recover damages from the defendants for a breach of this agreement.

(2.) THE plaintiff has taken out this summons for a transfer of this suit to the list of commercial causes. This summons is contested by the defendants who have contended before me that the cause of action in this suit does not arise out of the ordinary transactions of merchants and traders and that therefore this suit should not be transferred to the list of commercial causes.

(3.) AT the earlier hearing of this summons, counsel for the defendants had contended that his clients were producers of films and therefore could not be called merchants within the definition of that term which has been laid down in Josselyn v. Parson (1872) L. R. 7 Exch. 127, 129, where Bramwell B. observed that " a merchant of or in an article is one who buys and sells it, and not the manufacturer selling. " This proposition was not contested by counsel for the plaintiff and I need not say anything more about it. The argument which has been advanced by counsel for the plaintiff is only on the word " traders" appearing in the definition of " commercial causes" in Rule 199 of the High Court Rules, and I have got to determine whether the parties fall within the category of " traders. "