Mr. Devinder Gupta ( 1 ) THIS is plaintiff s application under Order 39 Rulesi and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an injunctionagainst the defendant during the pendency of the suit restraining the defendantfrom interfering in the sale and exclusive right of the plaintiff in respect of thedistribution; exhibition and exploitation of picture DOSTANA and further restraining the defendant from refusing to grant permission to run the picture indelhi and U. P. and from issuing any circular to members for not running the saidpicture DOSTANA and from withdrawing any printson this pretext. An injunctionin mandatory form has also been claimed directing the defendant to forthwithdeliver the prints collected by the defendant from Kumar Cinema (Bareilly),miglani Cinema (Moradabad) and Nishat Talkies (Meerut ). ( 2 ) THE plaintiff has filed the suit alleging that it is engaged in the business ofdistribution, exhibition and exploitation of cinematographic films in Delhi and U. P. and is presently holding distribution rights of picture DOSTANA and RAIZADA. It is alleged that through an agreement dated 7. 9. 1994 the plaintiff acquired thebalance right of picture Dostana by entering into an agreement with M/s Aarteetraders (Dostana) on a fixed hire basis of Rs. 1,50,000. 00, which has since been paidto M/s Aartee Traders (Dostana ). It is alleged that initially picture Dostana wasacquired by M/s Aartee Traders and was duly registered in their favour in therecord of the defendants. M/s Aartee Traders was a partnership concern of fivebrothers, namely, Shobh Raj Jaisinghani, Nand Lal Jaisinghani, Nanak Ram Jaisinghani and Prakash Kumar Jaisinghani and Pawan Kumar Jaisinghani. This partnership was dissolved on 4. 9. 1977 when Nand Lal Jaisinghani and Prakash Kumarjaisinghani retired. The firm continued with the remaining partners Shobh Raj,nanak Ram and Pawan Kumar. This partnership was again dissolved on 4. 5. 1983 (wrongly shown as 4. 8. 1993) when Nanak Ram and Pawan Kumar retired witheffect from 1. 10. 1982. Partnership was taken over by Shobh Ram Jaisinghani as thesole proprietor of firm M/s Aartee Traders. In this dissolution picture DOSTANAfell to the share of Nanak Ram and Pawan Kumar who constituted a separatepartnership under the name and style of M/s Aartee graders (Dostana) on andfrom 4. 5. 1983 and since then they have been carrying or. business under the nameand style of M/s Aartee Traders (Dostana ). ( 3 ) ON 7. 9. In this dissolution picture DOSTANAfell to the share of Nanak Ram and Pawan Kumar who constituted a separatepartnership under the name and style of M/s Aartee graders (Dostana) on andfrom 4. 5. 1983 and since then they have been carrying or. business under the nameand style of M/s Aartee Traders (Dostana ). ( 3 ) ON 7. 9. 1994 the plaintiff acquired the rights of picture Dostana from M/saartee Traders (Dostana) for a total consideration of Rs. 1,50,000. 00 Due intimation, at the time of dissolution was given to all the members of the film trade bym/s Aartee Traders and it was known that M/s Aartee Traders had become thesole proprietary concern of Shobh Raj and picture Dostana had came to the shareof Nanak Ram and Pawan Kumar. Plaintiff on acquiring the right of picturedostana from M/s Aartee Traders (Dostana) applied with defndant No. l forregistration of the picture. Initially permission was granted to he plaintiff, onpayment of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 for a period of two weeks, for the screering of the film. This payment of Rs. I lac was insisted upon by the defendant, since pccording to thedefendant M/s Aartee Traders were indebted to numerous numbers of thedefendant. Since plaintiff was desirous of the screening the picture in varioustheaters within the territory of Delhi and U. P. , the plaintiff deposited the requisiteregistration fee with the defendant and also spent considerable amount in publicityof the film and in acquiring prints of the film. ( 4 ) IN order to pressurize the plaintiff to settle the dues of M/s Aartee Traders,the defendant has issued directions to various exhibitors in Delhi and U. P. not toexhibit the picture Dostana, without getting the permission of the defendant andalso asked those exhibitors to deposit the prints of picture with the defendant. It isalleged that the defendant has already got three prints of picture Dostana fromkumar Cinema (Bareily), Miglani Cinema (Moradabad) and Nishat cinema (Meerut ). The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant is neither granting remission nor isconsidering registration of the picture and the defendant is threatming not to grantpermission to exhibit the picture unless the plaintiff makes payment of the dues ofm/s Aartee Traders with respect to another picture Razia Sultana. 5. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant is neither granting remission nor isconsidering registration of the picture and the defendant is threatming not to grantpermission to exhibit the picture unless the plaintiff makes payment of the dues ofm/s Aartee Traders with respect to another picture Razia Sultana. 5. The plaintiff has claimed the aforementioned decree alleging that thedefendant has no authority to refuse to grant permission on the ground of thealleged non-payment of dues of the members against picture zazia Sultana ofm/s Aartee Traders, which now is the sole proprietary concern on Shobh Raj Jaisinghani since the plaintiff has absolutely no concern or connectionwith Shobh Raj. The plaintiff has acquired full rights of picture DOSTANA, by making completepayment to its holders, namely, Pawan Kumar and Nanak Ram and is entitled tohave the same registered. The action of defendant to club the dues a picture Raziasultana against the registration of the picture Dostana is an attenment to pressurizeand blackmail the plaintiff. The decree claimed in the suit is for dec) ration that thedefendant has no right to refuse registration of picture Dostana due to the allegednon-payment ofd ues of members in respect of picture Razia Sultaris registration ofwhich is in the name of M/s Aartee Traders and for a mand of pry injunctiondirecting the defendant to register the picture Dostana in favour of the plaintiff andissue necessary circular to the exhibitors that the plaintiff is entitled have thepicture screened and directing the defendant to restore the three prints to theplaintiff. ( 6 ) SUIT is resisted by the defendant who has denied the legality and validitv ofthe two dissolutions amongst five brothers. The defendant claims that the dissolution is bogus and is a clever device with a view to defraud its credtors. Accordingto the defendant picture Dostana was the only picture with M/s Aartee Tradersfrom which the creditors, who are all membeirs of Defendant Association couldhave recovered their dues. The dissolution, according to the defendant is a deviceto cheat the creditors by taking away the only asset from which the creditor couldrecoup their dues. The defendant has also assailed the agreement arrived atamongst the plaintiff and the retiring partners of Aartee Traders on the ground thatthe alleged agreement dated 7. 9. 1974 for a paltry consideration of only Rs. 1,50,000. 00 is a sham transaction meant only to defraud the creditors. The defendant has also assailed the agreement arrived atamongst the plaintiff and the retiring partners of Aartee Traders on the ground thatthe alleged agreement dated 7. 9. 1974 for a paltry consideration of only Rs. 1,50,000. 00 is a sham transaction meant only to defraud the creditors. In view of thestatus of film Dostana, rights therein could not have been acquired for a paltry sumof Rs. 1,50,000. 00 and that also on a Fixed hire. Picture Dostana could not haveotherwise been got registered with the defendant as per rules of the defendant tillthe dues of creditors are deared. According to the defendant, the plaintiff knewvery well that there are huge dues against M/s Aartee Traders, which could onlybe recovered from picture Dostana and thus, after the alleged agreement of7. 9. 1974, when the plaintiff applied for registration, the plaintiff readily agreed todeposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 towards part liquidation of the dues of the creditorsand promised to abide by the decision of the creditors. Permission accordingly wasgranted only for a limited period of two weeks and that too subject to the plaintiffmaking Settlement with its creditors for the payment of dues. According to thedefendant, the rules of association stipulate that the dues of members have to bepaid before a picture is registered in the name of the applicant-distributor. Numberof other objections have been raised by the defendant, including the one that suitis only for declaration and is not maintainable in the present form. ( 7 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties who have also taken methrough the record. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon a decision of thiscourt in Mehboob Productions (Pvt.) Ltd. , Bombay v. Motion Pictures Association, Delhi ( 1974 DLT 299 ) for the proposition that for the dues of another concern,the defendant cannot refuse registration iof the picture. ( 9 ) PLAINTIFF s case in nutshell is that picture Dostana was initially registered inthe name of M/s Aartee Traders, a pairtnership-firm which stands dissolved. ( 9 ) PLAINTIFF s case in nutshell is that picture Dostana was initially registered inthe name of M/s Aartee Traders, a pairtnership-firm which stands dissolved. Picture Dostana fell to the share of two partners, who retired from the partnershipand for a valuable consideration, the plaintiff acquired its right and, thus, for theremaining period, the plaintiff is entitled to have the picture screened in varioustheater within the territories of U. P. and Delhi and since the same cannot bescreened, due to the rules and regulations of the defendant without its concurrence,which is a powerful association, the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration andinjunction which are the only remedies available to it. The plaintiff also claims thatthe defendant cannot compel the plaintiff to pay the dues of M/s Aartee Traderswith respect to another picture. Liability is that of M/s Aartee Traders which is nowthe sole proprietary concern of Shobh Raj. The plaintiff, thus, states it has got aprima fade case in his favour and balance of convenience also lies in its favour. ( 10 ) AFTER going through the pleadings of the parties and documents placed onrecord I am not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Counselfor the plaintiff am of the view that even to the facts of the case, ratio of dedsion inmehboob Productions (Pvt.) Ltd. s case (supra) are also not applicable. After theplaintiff entered into an agreement with the two retiring partners of M/s Aarteetraders, a letter was addressed on 7. 9. 1974 by Nanakjaisinghani to the defendantinforming that the rights of picture Dostana have been given to the plaintiff on afixed hire and the entire consideration has been received. Request was made toregister the picture Dostana, for the balance period, in favour of the plaintiff. On6. 10. 1994 the defendant sent a communication to the plaintiff with copy to Chamangupta, a local representative of the plaintiff, which letter has been produced onrecord by the plaintiff. The gist of this letter is that after the plaintiff applied forregistration, the matter was considered by the Executive Committee of the defendant in the presence of the plaintiff s authorized representative Chaman Gupta,who requested that a meeting of the creditors of M/s Aartee Traders be called todecide the mode of recovery of the claim against Aartee Traders. The gist of this letter is that after the plaintiff applied forregistration, the matter was considered by the Executive Committee of the defendant in the presence of the plaintiff s authorized representative Chaman Gupta,who requested that a meeting of the creditors of M/s Aartee Traders be called todecide the mode of recovery of the claim against Aartee Traders. Chaman Guptaundertook to abide by and adhere to the decision to be taken by the creditors in themeeting in liquidating the dues against Aartee Traders. The letter further says thata meeting of creditor was scheduled to be held on 7. 10. 1994 for which the plaintiffwas asked to participate. The letter further says that;"on the undertaking to abide by the decision of the creditors to liquidate thedues against M/s Aartee Traders, Delhi and on tendering the pay order forrs. 1. 00lac for interim permission, the Executive Committee on 27. 9. 1994 hasgranted two weeks permission to you to release the picture dostana indelhi/u. P, circuit at members cinema. "10. The letter further informs the plaintiff that since the plaintiff has acquiredpicture on a fixed hire, an application for registration be made, in accordance withrules. ( 11 ) IT is not in dispute that the defendant association is a powerful body andif a distributor wishes to exhibit picture in Delhi and U. P. circuit, the rules ofassociation provide that firstly he should become a member of the Association andpay the prescribed fee. Secondly he should get the picture registered with theassociation. It is only after the picture is registered that the distributor gets a rightentitled to have the picture screened. at all theaters in Delhi and U. P. circuit, whichtheaters are the members of the defendant Association. On failure to follow thisprocedure the exhibitors, who are the members of the defendant, are obliged todeal with the distributor and refuse to screen their films. Rules have been framedby the defendant and it is not in dispute that rules do provide that if there is a claimof any of the member/members of the association against a particular distributorand he applies to the association for the registration of the picture in that case themembers shall not enter into any arrangement for taking his picture and theregistration of the picture will not be allowed unless a satisfactory arrangement ismade by the association for the recovery of the amount due of the members fromthe distributor. ( 12 ) THE interim relief which the plaintiff has claimed in the application underorder 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure if granted will result in almostdeciding the suit at this stage since the same relief has been prayed for in the mainsuit. The plaintiff is basing his argument on the decision in Mehboob Productions (Pvt.) Ltd. s case (supra ). On facts the ratio of said decision cannot be madeapplicable to the instant suit. In Mehboob Productions s case thirteen picturesproduced by Mehboob Productions (Pvt.) Ltd. were initially registered by thedefendant for a period of eleven months for being screened in various theaters indelhi and U. P. circuit. After the expiry of this period, Mehboob Products (Pvt.) Ltd. applied for registration, which was refused by the defendant on the ground, thatcertain dues were payable by ross International and unless those dues are clearedpicture will not be registered. It was also claimed that the wife of the proprietor of ross International was a director in Mehboob Products (Pvt.) Ltd. , therefore,payment of dues was a condition precedent. It was held that the defence taken bythe defendant was not a valid defence in law since Mehboob Products Pvt. Ltd. wasa separate and distinct entity from its shareholders and Mehboob Products hadattributed malice to the association in refusing membership. Picture had beenregistered in the name of Ross International only for a period of 11 months, whichperiod was already over. In these circumstances, injunction was granted directingmehboob Productions Pvt. Ltd. to be registered as one of the members of theassociation. The instant case is not on similar facts. Picture Dostana standsregistered in the name of M/s Aartee Traders, a partnership concern of fivepartners. In case any arrangement has been made amongst the five partners interse the same cannot have the effect of depriving the creditors of their legitimatedues, if any, since registration in their favour is valid and prima facie the defendantwould bejustified in calling upon even a transferee from M/s Aartee Traders orfrom its partners to pay of the dues in case the transferee wants to have the pictureregistered in his name on the ground that it has acquired rights for the remainingperiod. Plaintiff claims to be a transferee from the two partners of Aartee Traders. Moreover, by virtue of the letter dated 6. 10. Plaintiff claims to be a transferee from the two partners of Aartee Traders. Moreover, by virtue of the letter dated 6. 10. 1994 the plaintiff was permitted toscreen the picture for two months on clear understanding that the plaintiff willhave to settle the matter with the creditors and unless a satisfactory arrangementis arrived at, registration will not be carried out. In these circumstances, I do notfind any prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff for grant of injunction. There isalso no question of irreparable loss or injury being cause since loss or injury, if anycaused to the plaintiff, can very well be compensated in terms of money. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. List before D. R. on September, 1995 for admission/denial of documents andin Court on November 1995 for framing of issues.