G. R. LUTHRA ( 1 ) TWO Applications (I. A. 4240 and 4400 of 1982) in Suit Nos. 1510-A/82 and 1555-A/82 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code read with Section 41 and Sch. II of the Arbitration Act and another application (I. A. 4397/82) under O. 1, R. 10, Civil P. C. are being decided together because they are inter-connected. This order is being written in the file of I. A. 4240/82 in Suit No. 1510-A/82. ( 2 ) APPLICANT of I. A. 4240/82 is M/s. Navketan International Films Pvt. Ltd. , Film Colony, Chandni Chowk, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Navketan Films ). The applicant of the remaining two applications is M/s. Magnum Films, a partnership firm. Both the applicants are distributors of cinema films. Inter alia, Navketan Films is holding the distribution, exhibition and exploitation rights of a picture "swami Dada" while Magnum Films is holding distribution, exhibition and exploitation rights of the film nikah . The rights of each of them with respect to his film is in the territories of Uttar Pradesh and Delhi. ( 3 ) M/s. Golcha Properties Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Golcha Properties) is a company registered under the Companies Act and owns a cinema known as golcha Cinema which is situated at Darya Ganj, New Delhi. Golcha Properties is respondent in every one of the applications. ( 4 ) THE picture nikah of Magnum Films is being exhibited on Golcha Cinema since October 15, 1982. According to Navketan Films it had entered into an agreement dated 21st July, 1982 with Golcha Properties to the effect that the film "swami Dada" would be exhibited at Golcha Cinema for a period of 12 weeks commencing from a date to be notified at least 11 days in advance by the former to the latter and that then the latter would be under an obligation to exhibit the film "swami Dada" from the said notified date irrespective of the running or future programmes of the latter. ( 5 ) GOLCHA Properties sent a letter dated 4th Sept. ( 5 ) GOLCHA Properties sent a letter dated 4th Sept. , 1982 to Navketan Films to the effect that as per the arrangements, the latter had to release their picture "swami Dada" in continuation of the programme of running the picture "baghawat" by the former and that, therefore, the latter should confirm within 72 hours if the latter was in a position to exhibit its picture "swami Dada" after the film "baghawat" had been exhibited and if no reply were received by the former within 72 hours, some other picture would be booked in continuation of the then running programme. Navketan Films replied that according to the agreement, the picture "swami Dada" had to be released on giving of 11 days notice by them and that it was Golcha Properties who had to adjust their present and future programmes accordingly and, that, therefore, the latter could not press for notifying the date of screening of the picture "swami Dada". On Nov. 5, 1982, Navketan Films wrote a letter to Golcha Properties to the effect that in view of the agreement dated 21st July, 1982, a notice was being given that picture "swami Dada" would be screened at Golcha Cinema on and from Dec. 3, 1982 simultaneously in other cinemas of Delhi and New Delhi. Golcha Properties sent reply dated Nov. 6, 1982 to the effect that they were already committed in respect of screening the picture "nikah" which was drawing full houses and that the picture "swami Dada" could not be released from Dec. 3, 1982. Golcha Properties also informed that the picture "swami Dada" could be screened on and from 26th Nov. , 1982 because the distributor of the picture nikah had the right to continue screening of that picture in case screening of picture swami Dada would not be commenced from Nov. 26, 1982. ( 6 ) ON account of the aforesaid reply, Navketan Films brought a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act which was registered as Suit No. 1510-A of 1982. It prayed that the disputes between it and Golcha Properties be referred to arbitration of the arbitrators to be appointed by Motion Picture Association. 26, 1982. ( 6 ) ON account of the aforesaid reply, Navketan Films brought a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act which was registered as Suit No. 1510-A of 1982. It prayed that the disputes between it and Golcha Properties be referred to arbitration of the arbitrators to be appointed by Motion Picture Association. It stated that both it and Golcha Properties were members of the said association and that according to the rules and regulations of the said association, disputes between the members must be referred to arbitrators to be appointed by the said Association. Along with the said petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, I. A. 4240/82 was brought. By way of that application, Navketan Films prayed that pending the hearing and final decision of the main petition (Suit No. 1510-A/82), an interim injunction restraining Golcha Properties from committing breach of the agreement dated 21st July, 1982 and also restraining it from exhibiting, continue to exhibit or releasing any other picture except "swami Dada" on their Golcha Cinema, Delhi with effect from Dec. 3, 1982, be issued. ( 7 ) GOLCHA Properties contested the aforesaid application. During the pendency of the said application. Magnum Films brought an application (I. A. 4397/82) under O. 1, R. 10, Civil Procedure Code for impleading them as respondent. It is stated in the said applica- tion that as Navketan Films wanted discontinuation of the exhibition of the picture nikah from Dec. 3, 1982, their rights were materially affected and that, therefore, they should be allowed to be a party so as to enable them to contest the application of Navketan Films. ( 7-A ) THE aforesaid application was contested by Navketan Films. The counsel for Navketan Films pointed out that in Suit No. 412-A/82 I had decided on April 20, 1982 that such an application under O. 1, R. 10, Civil Procedure Code was not legally maintainable and that, therefore, the application of Magnum Films be dismissed. ( 8 ) THEREAFTER on 22nd Nov. The counsel for Navketan Films pointed out that in Suit No. 412-A/82 I had decided on April 20, 1982 that such an application under O. 1, R. 10, Civil Procedure Code was not legally maintainable and that, therefore, the application of Magnum Films be dismissed. ( 8 ) THEREAFTER on 22nd Nov. , 1982 M/s. Magnum Films brought a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act (registered as Suit No. 1555-A/82) to the effect that the picture nikah was being screened on Golcha Cinema by virtue of an agreement dated 3rd May, 1982, that according to the said agreement, the said picture must be continued to be screened so long as the same continued to collect at least Rs. 65,000. 00 per week consisting of 28 shows, that the picture was collecting more than that amount and, that, therefore, the same must continue. It was stated that the net collection after deducting taxes of the shows of the film nikah at Golcha Cinema were as underit was alleged that in breach of the agreement, Golcha Properties wanted to oblige Navketan Films by way of discontinuing the screening of film nikah and commencing of screening the film swami Dada from Dec. 3, 1982 and that, therefore, disputes be referred to the arbitrators to be appointed by the Motion Picture Association. ( 9 ) ALONG with that petition, Magnum Films brought an application (I. A. 4400/82) praying that pending the hearing and final decision of the petition, an ex parte injunction restraining Golcha Properties from committing any breach of the agreement dated May 3, 1982 and also from discontinuing the screening of picture nikah at Golcha Cinema so long as the said picture continued to collect Rs. 65,000. 00 per week per 28 shows, be granted. ( 10 ) THE application for issue of injunction filed by Magnum Films is contested by Golcha Properties as well as by Navketan Films. I have heard the Counsel for the parties. ( 11 ) OBVIOUSLY, Navketan Films prays for issue of a mandatory injunction although the prayer is couched in a manner as if only prohibitory injunction was being prayed. Mandatory injunction is one where a direction is issued to a person to do a particular thing. I have heard the Counsel for the parties. ( 11 ) OBVIOUSLY, Navketan Films prays for issue of a mandatory injunction although the prayer is couched in a manner as if only prohibitory injunction was being prayed. Mandatory injunction is one where a direction is issued to a person to do a particular thing. In the present case, the prayer of Navketan Films of prohibitory injunction contains by way of implication and in substance the removal of picture nikah and installation in its place of picture swami Dada . It is, therefore, clear that Navketan Films wants a mandate or direction to the effect that with effect from Dec. 3, 1982 the picture "swanri Dada" must be exhibited on Golcha Cinema and exhibition of picture nikah should be discontinued with effect from the said date. A temporary mandatory injunction, as was held by me in Baldev Raj v. Savitri Bai, 1981 Rajdhani LR 367: (AIR 1982 Del 49), can be issued only in case of extreme hardship and compelling circumstances and mostly in those cases when status quo existing on the date of the institution of the suit is to be restored. In the present case, there are no compelling circumstances or circumstances of. extreme hardship. Rather, Navketan Films wants the disturbing of the status quo of the screening of the picture Nikah . ( 12 ) EVEN otherwise I find no justification for giving preference to agreement dated 21st July 1982 in favour of Navketan Films as against prior agreement dated May 3, 1982 in favour of Magnum Films. Agreement in favour of Magnum Films being prior in date cannot be subject to the stipulation in the agreement in favour of Navketan Films to effect effect that Golcha Properties will have to accommodate picture swami Dada even by way of cancelling running programme. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for Navketan Films, however, contend that there are indications to the effect that the agreement dated May 3, 1982 is merely fabricated and prepared by Magnum Films and Golcha Properties with a view to defeat rights of Navketan Films. Sum and substance of the indications or circumstances relied upon by the learned counsel for Navketan Films is as follows: (I) An agreement was entered into between S. K. Pictures Distributors and Golcha Properties by means of a letter dated 2nd Aug. Sum and substance of the indications or circumstances relied upon by the learned counsel for Navketan Films is as follows: (I) An agreement was entered into between S. K. Pictures Distributors and Golcha Properties by means of a letter dated 2nd Aug. , 1982 photostat copy of which has been placed on record by Navketan Films. By way of that letter Golcha Properties agreed to screen Picture Sacha Jhuta of M/s. S. K. Pictures for the period from 13th Aug. , 1982 to 19th Aug. , 1982 subject to the agreement in respect of pictures Baghawat and Swami Dada. There is no mention of the agreement in respect of the picture nikah . That shows that on 2nd August, 1982 no agreement in respect of the picture nikah or Talaq, Talaq, Talaq had been executed. (ii) In the letter dated 6th Nov. , 1982 (Photostat copy on the record) Golcha Properties while declining to fix the date of release of picture swami Dada as 3rd Dec. , 1982 used the following words : "we committed and confirmed the picture nikah when you failed to give us any date of release of your picture swami DADA in reply to our letter No. GOB/dhl/712/82- 83 dated 4-9-1982. " Learned counsel argued that in case agreement dated May 3, 1982 existed in favour of Magnum Films there could not be any committal and confirmation of the picture nikah after 4th Sept. , 1982. (iii) The agreement dated May 3, 1982 is far from normal. Normally minimum period during which the picture is to be screened at aparticular cinema is mentioned but no minimum period is mentioned in the said agreement. ( 14 ) BUT the aforesaid circumstances are capable of explanation. In the letter dated 2nd Aug. , 1982 there could not be any mention of the picture nikah because said picture could not be screened by then on account of absence of censor certificate. I was told by the learned counsel for Magnum films at the bar that originally name of the picture was talaq, Talaq, Talaq , that there was some objection from certain section of the public, that therefore, picture was not allowed to be released by the censor, that thereafter name was changed to nikah to remove the aforesaid objection and that it was on 18th Sept. . 1982 that censor certificate was obtained. . 1982 that censor certificate was obtained. Therefore, When agreement dated 2nd Aug. , 1982 was arrived at between S. K. Pictures and Golcha Properties there could not be any chance of release of the picture nikah and hence release of sacha Jhuta was not made subject to the release of nikah . ( 15 ) THERE is common practice in the film trade that agreements by the distributors with exhibitors are entered into much before even the picture is complete or is available for release by way of obtaining censor certificate and actually dates of screening of the pictures are fixed and confirmed later on. Words in the letter dated 6th Nov. , 1982, which have been reproduced above, related to the confirmation and committal in respect of the date of release and not in respect of the entering into original agreement. Reason is obvious because aforesaid words were being used with respect to the date of release of picture swami Dada which meant that it was the date of release with respect to picture nikah that commitment and confirmation had been made. ( 16 ) IT is true that no minimum period during which nikah had to be screened at Golcha was mentioned in the agreement dated May 3, 1982. But very plausible explanation was given at the bar by the counsel for Magnum Films at the time of arguments. The picture was having new faces. Heroine was introduced for the first time. Therefore, neither the distributor desired nor the exhibitor allowed that minimum period of screening should be prescribed. The producer was not sure of success and therefore, he did not want to burden himself with the hire money of cinema for such minimum period. The exhibitor i. e. Golcha Properties being also not sure of success did not want to keep the cinema engaged in case picture became flop. Therefore, the term prescribed was that picture would run till it was able to collect Rs. 65000. 00 per week. ( 17 ) LEARNED counsel for Navketan Films also relied upon letter dated 23rd Sept. , 1982 which embodies an agreement between Golcha Properties and M/s. S. S. Friends Combine Films Distributors. Said letter was in respect of the film "yeh Kaisa Nasha Hai". It was stated therein that the said film would be screened from 8th Oct. ( 17 ) LEARNED counsel for Navketan Films also relied upon letter dated 23rd Sept. , 1982 which embodies an agreement between Golcha Properties and M/s. S. S. Friends Combine Films Distributors. Said letter was in respect of the film "yeh Kaisa Nasha Hai". It was stated therein that the said film would be screened from 8th Oct. , 1982 in case film nikah was not to be screened from that date and that the picture would be discontinued when picture swami Dada would be released. Learned counsel contended that that letter showed that all the subsequent contracts by Golcha Properties in respect of release of pictures were subject to the date of release of picture swami Dada and that therefore, agreement with respect to picture nikah should also be taken subject to the agreement regarding picture Swami Dada. ( 18 ) BUT obviously that argument has no force when the agreement in favour of Magnum Films regarding picture nikah was earlier in time and also there is nothing to show that the release or continuance of picture nikah was subject to "the release of picture swami Dada . ( 19 ) BALANCE of convenience also favours Magnum Films. Their picture Nikah is running and drawing crowds. It is common ground between Golcha Properties and Magnum Films that the collection per week has been more than Rs. 65,000. 00. Therefore, it is necessary that status quo must be maintained, rather than disturbing the same, for accommodating swami Dada . It may be mentioned that in Suit No. 619/1982 D. R. Khanna, J. , by means of judgment dated May 6, 1982, with a view to maintain status quo, granted an injunction for continuing and running of picture bemisal at Rachna cinema as against attempted removal of the same by the management of Rachna Cinema and releasing another picture named ASHANTI. ( 20 ) LEARNED counsel for Golcha Properties contended that neither Magnum Films nor Navketan Films were entitled to injunction because there could not be any irreparable injury on account of refusal of injunction. He explained that injury caused to them could be compensated in money and that being so injury could not be said to be irreparable one. He furthercontended that in fact no injunction could be issued in view of Section 41 (e) read with Section 14 (1) (a) of Specific Relief Act which read as under: "41. He explained that injury caused to them could be compensated in money and that being so injury could not be said to be irreparable one. He furthercontended that in fact no injunction could be issued in view of Section 41 (e) read with Section 14 (1) (a) of Specific Relief Act which read as under: "41. An injunction cannot be granted (e) to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which would not be specifically enforced. " "14. (1) The following contracts cannot be specifically enforced, namely : (a) a contract for the non-performance of which compensation in money is an adequate relief. "learned counsel contended that in view of the aforesaid provisions no injunction can be issued when the contract, breach of which is sought to be prevented could not be specifically enforced and that there could not be any specific performance of a contract in favour of Magnum Films and Navketan Films because compensation in money would be adequate relief. ( 21 ) I, however, do not agree with the learned counsel. There is no doubt that there could be measure for compensation if the picture were to run only at Golcha cinema. But the fact that picture is not released or run on Golcha can have repercussion in respect of screening of pictures on other cinema of Union Territory of Delhi and U. P. It will not be possible to measure damages caused on account of those repercussion. Hence injury will be irreparable one and injunction should be issued to avert the same. However, as already mentioned it is only Magnum Films which deserves injunction while Navketan Films does not deserve the same. It. Before deciding applications for issue of injunction it is necessary to decide application of Magnum Films for being impleaded in the case of Navketan Films. Learned counsel for Navketan Films had rightly relied upon my order dated 20th April, 1982 in D. P. Movies v. Deep Cinema, Suit No. 412-A of 1982. I had held that in such an application for injunction no third party who is not a party in the main petition under Section 20 of Arbitration Act can be added. Under the circumstances I dismiss this application. However, even otherwise this application became infructuous because Magnum Films had the opportunity of being heard in respect of the application of Navketan Films. Under the circumstances I dismiss this application. However, even otherwise this application became infructuous because Magnum Films had the opportunity of being heard in respect of the application of Navketan Films. ( 23 ) I, therefore, dismiss application being I. A. No. 4240 of 1982 of Navketan Films and allow that of Magnum Films and issue injunction restraining Golcha Properties from committing breach of the agreement dated May 3, 1982 and discontinuing picture nikah unless the collection per week falls short of Rs. 65,000. 00 or Magnum Films agrees to discontinuance of the screening of that picture.