( 1 ) BOTH the proceedings arise out of the order passed in I. A. No. 4428 of 2001 in O. S. No. 580 of 2001 pending on the file of the Chief Judge, City. Civil Court, Hyderabad. The Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order dated 3-1-2002 passed, in I. A. No; 4428 of 2001 in O. S. No. 580 of 2001 and the Civil Misc. Appeal arises out of the order dated 3-1-2002 passed, in I. A. No. 4370 of 2001. We are dealing with the C. R. P. No. first which will decide the fate of C. M. A.

( 2 ) IT appears from the record that the plaintiff M/s. Incable Net Services, Hyderabad, filed O. S. No. 580 of 2001 in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the defendant Star India Pvt. Ltd. , Hyderabad, for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to supply the signals of Star Net Work without payment of any subscription, which is alleged to be the fundamental right of the plaintiff.

( 3 ) IT is further stated in the plaint that in the year 1997 franchise agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant for receiving the transmissions of Star Movies. Star Plus, Star World, Star Net Work, National Geographic Channel and Star Gold etc. hereinafter referred to as "star Network" on payment of monthly subscription of Rs. 36,000. 00 initially and thereafter without there being any concurrence nor willingness from the plaintiff, the defendant gradually unilaterally went on increasing from time to time monthly subscription from Rs. 36,000. 00 to Rs. 48,000. 00 and lastly Rs. 2,85,000. 00, which was not accepted by the plaintiff at any point of time and raised objections from time to time. For this abnormal unilateral increase, the defendant never obtained the concurrence or acceptance of the plaintiff. The defendant used to obtain the signatures of the plaintiff on the blank agreement forms. Except the signature of the plaintiff, other things might have been" filled up and doctored to suit their convenience, which was never agreed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the copies of the agreement along with the suit to show such agreements were obtained by the defendant.

( 4 ) IT is the further case of the plaintiff that he objected from time to time but no cognisance was taken. It is further stated that the plaintiff received a subscription renewal letter dated 19-2-2001 acknowledging and informing the renewal of franchisee of the plaintiff and in this renewal letter, there is no arbitration or restrictive clauses as they are not accepted by the plaintiff. But assuming that there is an arbitration clause, the defendant filed caveat before the High Court as preemptive attempt to disconnect the supply of the signals and in order to cause wrongful loss to the plaintiff and wrongful gain for themselves. The plaintiff never agreed for arbitration clause at any point of time.

( 5 ) IT is further stated that the plaintiff raised objections from to time but no cognisance was taken and went on increasing the subscription and went on obtaining the signatures on the blank agreement forms from the plaintiff.

( 6 ) IT is further pleaded by the plaintiff that relying upon the pronouncement made by the Apex Court in different Judgments, for example in AIR 1995 SC 1236, it is stated that it is the right of the plaintiff to receive the airwaves without payment as a fundamental right. The cause of action to the plaintiff arose when the plaintiff did not pay the amount as demanded by the defendant, finally the defendant disconnected the Star Connection on 10-12-2001. Therefore, the suit was filed by the plaintiff with a prayer to grant mandatory Injunction directing the defendant to supply the signals of Star Network without payment of any subscription. It was further prayed to declare the action of the defendant in claiming subscription in the name of pay channels for supply of signals of their channels through air-waves as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the right of viewers and listeners and al