Judgment :- P. Sathasivam, J. The above Original Side Appeal has been filed against Order of learned Single Judge dated 25-2-2005 made in O.A.No.789 of 2004 in C.S.No.749 of 2004 in and by which the learned Judge appointed the first respondent therein/appellant herein and the counsel for the fourth respondent therein as Joint Receivers for the Tamil Film "Ullam Ketkkume". The plaintiff/first respondent herein, namely, G.V. Films, instituted Civil Suit No. 749/2004 on the file of the Original Side of this Court against the appellant herein as first defendant and 17 others praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the absolute Copyright of the plaintiff over the Tamil cinematograph film, "Ullam Ketkkume" by preventing in any manner the release and exploitation of the said film. The plaintiff has also prayed for mandatory injunction directing the first defendant laboratory to deliver prints of the Tamil cinematograph film "Ullam Ketkkume" to the plaintiff or such other persons named by this Court notwithstanding any claim by the first defendant or any other defendants and subject to any condition that this Court might impose for keeping of an account of all realisations from exploiting the said film and preserving such realisations intact separately till the claims of all the defendants herein are adjudicated upon. 2. In the said suit the plaintiff has also filed Original Application No. 789 of 2004 praying for appointment of joint receivers, one of whom could be a representative of the applicant/plaintiff company and the other could be a representative of the respondents, to take charge of the negatives and all the 72 number of positive prints of the Tamil cinematograph film, "Ullam Ketkkume" from the first respondent's laboratory, book appropriate theatres all over Tamil Nadu, release such prints in such theatres, submit to this Court accounts of all collections from exploitation of such prints and deposit such collections every week into this Court after deducting taxes, theatre rent and lawful expenses involved in exploiting the picture subject to the result of and pending disposal of the suit. The said Application was resisted by the first respondent therein/appellant herein by filing counter affidavit. The said Application was resisted by the first respondent therein/appellant herein by filing counter affidavit. By the impugned order dated 25-2-2005, the learned Judge, after considering the claim of both parties, particularly taking of the fact that the financial position of the petitioner/plaintiff and of the fact that all the respondents/defendants who are creditors entitled payment more particularly the first defendant laboratory got lien over others, passed an order appointing the first respondent-Prasad Film Laboratories and Mr. P. Jerome Pushparaj, counsel for 4th respondent therein as joint receivers for the Tamil Film "Ullam Ketkkume" and also issued certain other directions for exhibition of the said film in 72 theatres and keep the collection by filing statement of the Court and posted the said application to 14-6-2005 for further hearing. Questioning the said order, Prasad Film Laboratories/first respondent therein, have filed the above appeal. 3. Heard Mr. Srinivasa Raghavan, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. K. Ravi, learned counsel for first respondent in this Appeal. 4. Even at the outset, it was brought to the notice of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that Original Side Appeal No. 37/2005 filed by Photo Film Industries, Pondicherry/2nd respondent in that Application, filed against the very same order has been dismissed by this Court on 11-3-2005. In that decision, after finding that the course adopted by the learned Judge is reasonable and acceptable and also taking note of the fact that the appointment of Joint Receivers to exhibit the film "Ullam Ketkume" is only for a limited period and posted O.A.No.789/2004 for further hearing on 14-6-2005, we dismissed the said appeal. However, Mr. Srinivasa Raghavan, learned senior counsel for the appellant, would contend that in spite of the dismissal of O.S.A.No.37/2005 and confirmation of the very same order of the learned Single Judge dated 25-2-2005, the appellant herein who stands in a different footing is entitled to challenge the same. According to him, though the learned Judge has applied Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same has not been properly applied in this case. Since the plaintiff has no legal right or cause of action to continue the suit. He further contended that the plaintiff has not performed his obligation and has not satisfied Sections 15 and 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Since the plaintiff has no legal right or cause of action to continue the suit. He further contended that the plaintiff has not performed his obligation and has not satisfied Sections 15 and 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. He further contended that as per Section 170 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the appellant herein is entitled to lien over others. According to him, the plaintiff is not entitled to any benefit in view of Sections 64 and 65 of the Indian Contract Act. He further contended that when the suit is liable to be dismissed, the Court cannot re-write the terms of contract and grant relief by appointment of a joint receiver. On the other hand, Mr. K. Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, contended that the learned Single Judge considering the claim of all the parties, including Bailee’s lien of the appellant herein over others, passed an workable interim order which requires no interference by this Court. He also contended that the negative of the film will be with the appellant and even the order appointing joint receiver was made on the consent given by the appellant by filing a memo. We have considered all the relevant materials and the rival contentions. 5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is useful to refer the interim arrangement made by the learned Judge which reads as under:- “4. Accordingly the following order is passed: “The first respondent and the counsel for the fourth respondent Mr. We have considered all the relevant materials and the rival contentions. 5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is useful to refer the interim arrangement made by the learned Judge which reads as under:- “4. Accordingly the following order is passed: “The first respondent and the counsel for the fourth respondent Mr. Jerome Pushparaj are appointed as joint receivers for the Tamil film “Ullam Ketkkume”, the applicant/plaintiff shall spend a sum of Rs.10 lakhs in effecting necessary advertisements in the name of the joint receivers for the release of the film in Tamil language in the State of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry; the applicant shall select good theatres for release of the film all oover Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry and place it before the joint receivers for their approval and selection; the joint receivers shall release 72 prints of the film in all the 72 theatres so approved by them, which prints are already ready in the custody of the first respondent/laboratory; the joint receivers shall realise the collections from such release and deposit the same in a Nationalised Bank in a separate account to be opened in the names of joint receivers; such deposit shall be after deduction of tax and theatre rents, if any post release publicity is needed, on intimation from the joint receivers, the applicant shall bring the necessary fund to meet those expenditures as well; the applicant shall have a priority claim for the reimbursement of the money spent by him on pre release publicity and post release publicity of the picture from and out of the collections at the time of disbursement; the joint receivers are entitled to withdraw such sum of money from the amount in deposit to defray any reasonable and lawful expenses, which they may incur towards the release of the film, which would include wages for representatives as may be appointed by them for all the theatres where the picture is released; the 18th respondent, who holds a concluded contract for exploiting the picture in overseas territories can take the prints at his cost from the first respondent/laboratory for export purposes only; the disbursement of any amount from such collection either towards reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the applicant towards pre release publicity or post release publicity and return of the amount to any of the defendants shall wait further orders from this Court; on the applicant meeting the necessary expenses, the joint receivers shall permit the applicant to add a small negligible missing portion of the film in the prints already available, subject to the condition that he pays the actual cost of that process to the first respondent/laboratory; the joint receivers shall arrange for the release of the film within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the remuneration of the joint receivers shall be decided later on. Call this application on 14-6-2005.” Though vehement argument was made by the learned senior counsel for the appellant by pointing out the power of civil court under Section 94 C.P.C., provisions from Specific Relief Act (Sections 15 and 16), Sections 64, 65 and 170 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, as rightly observed by the learned Judge, unless the film is exhibited and money is collected, no claim including the priority claim of the appellant can be settled. We are satisfied that the learned Judge while passing the interim arrangement by appointing joint receivers was conscious of the above statutory provisions and in order to mitigate the burden of the plaintiff and also by protecting the interest of all creditors, more particularly the appellant laboratory, made the above arrangement. The order impugned is not a final one. As a matter of fact, even the learned Judge himself has posted the said application for appointment of receivers to 14-6-2005 for further hearing. Inasmuch as the learned Judge has not rejected the claim of the applicant and the present order has been made as an interim arrangement, we are not inclined to interfere at this stage. The appellant is free to raise all contentions with reference to the above mentioned provisions including "bailee's particular lien" under Section 170 of the Indian Contract Act when O.A.No.789/2004 is taken up for hearing on 14-6-2005. It is also relevant to note that as pointed out by the learned counsel for the first respondent, the negatives will be with the appellant and even the said arrangement, namely, appointing joint receivers was made at the instance of all the parties, including the appellant who has not disputed the fact of filing a memo before the learned Single Judge. As rightly observed by the Division Bench of this Court in R.M. Subbiah Vs. N. Sankaran Nair, reported in AIR 1979 Madras p.56, the picture that has been picturised on celluloid, it would not be conducive in equity or in the name of justice to keep such a completed picture in the shelves of a laboratory without the same being exploited for the benefit of both the parties. It is also relevant to note that the learned Judge has not permitted the plaintiff to receive the money to be realised by the joint receivers. It is also relevant to note that the learned Judge has not permitted the plaintiff to receive the money to be realised by the joint receivers. As pointed out by the appellant, they are entitled lien over others, we hope and trust that the said claim will be decided by the learned Judge considering the report of the joint receivers. In the light of our conclusion and of our earlier order dated 11-3-2005 in O.S.A.No.37 of 2005, we are not inclined to admit the above appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed with the above observation. No costs. The connected C.M.P., is also dismissed.