Judgment : Common Judgment: M. Chockalingam, J. 1. These two appeals centered around upon the common order of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in two applications, namely A.Nos.936 and 937 of 2005 in C.S.No.167 of 2005. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. No representation on the respondents side. The affidavit filed in support of both the applications and also the plaint averments are looked into. 3. It was a suit filed by the appellant for money decree with a direction to the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.48,00,000/- towards interest together with 24% interest from the date of plaint and also to pay a sum of Rs.42,00,000/- towards compensation together with the same rate of interest. 4. According to the plaintiff/appellant, an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant on 13.02.2002 for production of a film titled as Pithamagan. As per the agreement, the film should have been produced within 90 days and the first defendant agreed to deliver the first copy of the said film on or before 20.10.2002. If there was any delay, the first defendant agreed to pay Rs.4 lakhs for every month as interest for the delayed period. At the time of initiation of the said suit, two applications were filed, one seeking for attachment of the film titled as Mayavi, alleging that the same was to be released by the first defendant in the month of March, 2005 and if it was allowed to be done, it would defeat the interest of the plaintiff. Further, there should be prohibitory order prohibiting the respondents from handing over the copies of the said film to the first defendant. While the matter was pending, applications were filed by the second defendant in A.Nos.1193 to 1195 of 2005 for impleadment and the applications were ordered. Thus, the orders have become final and the second defendant was also added as party. It was all contended by the second defendant before the learned Single Judge that he had nothing to do with the said transaction and he was the owner of the film Mayavi and hence no such order as asked for by the plaintiff could be given. The learned Single Judge took both the applications, seeking for attachment and prohibitory order, for enquiry and has dismissed the applications also. Thus, these two appeals have arisen before this court. The learned Single Judge took both the applications, seeking for attachment and prohibitory order, for enquiry and has dismissed the applications also. Thus, these two appeals have arisen before this court. 5. The only question that would arise for consideration is whether the plaintiff/appellant is entitled to have an order of attachment and also prohibitory order, as asked for before the learned Single Judge? 6. The Court heard the learned counsel for the appellant, who in his honest attempt of assailing the order under challenge, would submit that the learned Single Judge has not considered the factual positions. It is not in controversy that there was an agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant for production of film Pithamagan within the stipulated period. It is also very clear from the available materials placed before the court that the film was not completed within time and hence the first defendant was liable to pay the agreed amount of Rs.48 lakhs and apart from that Rs.42 lakhs towards compensation. The plaintiff was also able to show that the first defendant has produced another film titled as Mayavi and it was also to be screened earlier and if done, it would defeat the right of the plaintiff and under these circumstances, he filed both applications, but the learned Single Judge refused to grant the reliefs. 7. Added further the learned Counsel that in the instant case, the findings of the learned Single Judge that the second defendant, who was impleaded on the applications, was the owner of the film titled Mayavi was not correct, since the plaintiff has also filed materials to indicate that the first defendant was the owner and not the second defendant and hence that finding has got to be set aside. Added further the learned counsel that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the legal position as envisaged under Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act at the earliest point of time and even before issues are framed, and questions were not decided on appraisement of evidence and under these circumstances, the common order has got to be set aside. 8. No representation on the side of the respondents. The Court looked into the materials available and considered the submissions made. 9. 8. No representation on the side of the respondents. The Court looked into the materials available and considered the submissions made. 9. It is not in controversy that the plaintiffs claim was one for money on the strength of the agreement entered into between the parties for production of a film. The plaintiff claimed Rs.48 lakhs along with 24% interest and also claimed Rs.42 lakhs towards compensation on the grounds urged by him in the plaint averments. According to him, the first defendant was liable to pay the same. It would be quite clear that the first defendant was answerable to his claim and not the second defendant. The case of the plaintiff was that the first defendant has produced another film, by name Mayavi and if that film was to be released earlier, it would defeat his right and hence he has asked for an order of attachment and also prohibitory order in respect of the film Mayavi. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that before the learned Single Judge, the second defendant filed applications for impleadement and they were ordered and he was impleaded as second defendant. The second defendant has filed documents to show the details indicating that he was the owner of the second film Mayavi. It is further to be pointed out that so far as the second film Mayavi was concerned, the plaintiff had no claim at all and the second defendant was able to show that he was the producer. The Court is of the considered opinion that so far as the ownership of the second film Mayavi is concerned, he had nothing to do with the suit claim. In view of the evidence adduced by the second defendant and as rightly accepted by the learned Single Judge, this Court is unable to see anything to disturb that finding. 10. Furtner, so far as the suit claim is concerned, the plaintiff had made not only the claim of Rs.48 lakhs, but also Rs.42 lakhs towards compensation. In view of the evidence adduced by the second defendant and as rightly accepted by the learned Single Judge, this Court is unable to see anything to disturb that finding. 10. Furtner, so far as the suit claim is concerned, the plaintiff had made not only the claim of Rs.48 lakhs, but also Rs.42 lakhs towards compensation. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the contents of Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act and has recorded a finding, which in the opinion of the court is not warranted, since the proceedings are at the initial stage and issues have got to be framed and the evidence has got to be adduced and only on appreciation of evidence, the Court can come to a conclusion as to whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as asked for or not? Under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the contents of Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act, which at this time was not necessary and hence the findings in this regard is set aside, though the order of the learned Single Judge as to the denial of both the reliefs of attachment and prohibitory order is sustained. The learned Single Judge is required to proceed at the stage where the matter was left when the order was passed. Accordingly, these appeals are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMP is closed.