PREMJIT THEATRES Vs. RASHID MEHATA AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant. The appeal i-; agtinst the judgment and decree dated 19-3-1984 of the First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dismissing the suit.

(2.) The facts may briefly be stated:The plaintiff-appellant is a Film Exhibitor. The first defendant is a Film Distributor. Second defendant is a partner of the first defendant, The appellant-plaintiff controls the play time of the theatre Farheen 70 M.M. for exhibiting the pictures. They have four other sister concerns. Pramod Enterprises controls Anand Theatre, Pramod Theatres controls Alka Talkies, Pramod Films controls Sobhana. Theatre and Pramod Cinemas controls Sri Ramana 70M.M. theatre respectively.

(3.) The first defendant acquired the rights of distribution for a HindiMotion Picture by name ' Waqt-Ki-Deewar" for the Nizam Circuit Area. The plaintiff, who is the exhibitor, and the first defendant, who is Distributor, entered into an agreement on 4-3-1981 for playing the picture "Waqt-Ki-Deewar" from 27-3-81 in all the theatres controlled by the plaintiff and its bister concerns. Under the agreements the first defendant has to pay Rs. 28,000/- per week for 21 shows in Farheea. Theatre and for every extra show a proportionate hire of Rs. 3/- towards excise duty and Rs. 15/-towards representative batta. No time limit is prescribed. But the first defendant can terminate the picture by giving 14 days' notice in advance. Similar conditions and agreements were also entered into with the plaintiff's sister concerns with minor variation regarding the period and weekly hires. As per the above agreements, the defendants are bound to screen the picture from 27-3-81 in the above Five Theatres. The plaintiff and the defendants also entered into an agreement under which the plaintiff agreed to advance a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- for getting the picture released by him from the Producer. On 4-3-81 as the plaintiff was not ready with the money, the agreement was postponed to 7-3-1981 on which day it was reduced to writing. Under the said agreement the plaintiff has to advance a sum of Rs. 2,00,000,'- on 7-3-1981 and an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- on or before 13-3-1981. It was also provided in the agreement that the shares payable to the defendants from out of the theatres controlled by the plaintiff and its sister concerns shall be adjusted towards the advance lent by the plaintiff. The defendants further undertook to pay the realisations from other theatres as and when they are received and after adjustment of the said amounts, if any amount still remains unadjusted, the defendants shall pay the balance. The plaintiff confirmed the said letter Ex. A-8 and advanced the amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-. The picture was released in the theatres controlled by the plaintiff and its sister concerns and also at Sadia Talkies, Aurangabad. The picture was exhibited during the entire period in four out of the five theatres. As regards Farheen Theatre, after two weeks on 13-4-1981, the defendants gave a notice asking the plaintiff not to exhibit for more than two weeks after the said notice. During the third week, the plaintiff exhibited the picture "Mogle-E-Azam" after obtaining the consent of the defendants who also had distribution rights over the said picture. On 22-4-1981 the defendants paid a sum of Rs 25,000/. After adjusting the amounts received in all the theatres of the plaintiff and its sister concerns, the defendants were still due in a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- and odd. The plaintiff" says that he asked the defendants for refund of the amount several times and there was no reply. He wrote a letter on 13-7-1981 to which the defendants gave a reply accepting the above liability but however, stated that the amount will be paid out of the realisations from the picture at other theatres. It may be mentioned in this context that the plaintiff has distribution rights for this picture in the Nizam Circuit area for a period of ten years. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued a notice dated 28-7-1981 demanding payment of the amount with interest at 24% per annum. The defendants sent a reply denying their liability. Then the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the amount. In essence, the case of the plaintiff is that as per the agreements between the parties and according to custom, usage and practice in the trade, the remaining amount will have to be paid immediately after the exhibition of the film in their theatres is over, after adjusting the defendants shares.