S RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY Vs. K NARAYANADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This interlocutory Letters Patent Appeal by the plaintiff-appellant arises out of an order of the learned Judge of this court, dismissing the appeal in A.A.O. No. 597 of 1981 preferred against an order made in I. A. No.754/1981 in O. S. No. 160/81 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Khammam. Defendant 1 who is respondent 1 herein, while constructing the cinema theatre, Nartaki, in Khammam town required a sum of Rs. 2,50,000.00 which the appellant advanced in terms of Ex. A-1 agreement dated 6-12-1977. As per the terms, the appellant was given the right to screen three pictures per day for a period of 156 weeks on completion of the construction of the theatre (Scheduled date being 31-5-1978) and on conditions detailed therein. According to the appellant, respondent 1 required a further sum of Rs. 1,75,000.00 and so, a supplementary agreement Ex. A-2 dated 2-5-1978 was entered into, according to which the appellant advanced the said sum and was given the right to screen pictures for a further period of 156 weeks. Respondent 1 unilaterally put an end to the contract soon after the completion of the 1st 156 weeks on 14-5-1981 as alleged by the appellant herein which resulted in breach of the contract. Therefore, the appellant filed the suit for a declaration that he is entitled to screen pictures for a further period of 156 weeks from 15-7-1981 and for an injunction restraining respondent 1 and his agents from interfering with the exercise of the appellants right. The appellant filed 1. A. No. 754/1981 for temporary in junction, which was, though granted ex parte initially, but later on the application filed by the respondent was vacated. Aggrieved against a civil miscellaneous appeal was preferred in this court and learned single Judge of this court dismissed the same. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) The case of respondent 1 in the main is that he never executed Ex. A-2 agreement and that the appellant has contracted the same on stamp papers containing the signature of respondent 1 and left in the custody of the appellant. He also pleaded that the appellant has an adequate remedy of damages and inasmuch as respondent 1 already entered into an agreement dated 30-6-81 with respondent 2 herein enabling respondent 2 to screen the movies on certain terms and conditions with effect from 15-7-1981, the balance of convenience, therefore, lies more in favour of refusing the grant of injunction.

(3.) The learned subordinate judge held that the plaintiff has not made out any prima facie case and that even otherwise the balance of convenience is in favour of refusing the temporary injunction.