SEETHARAMA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS interlocutory Letters Patent Appeal by the plaintiff-appellant arises out of an order of the learned Judge of this court, dismissing the appeal in A. A. O. No. 597 of 1981 preferred against an order made in I. A. No. 754/1981 in O. S. No. 160/81 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Khammam. Defendant 1 who is respondent 1 herein, while constructing the cinema theatre, Nartaki, in Khammam town required a sum of Rs. 2,50,000. 00 which the appellant advanced in terms of Ex. A-1 agreement dated 6-12-1977. As per the terms, the appellant was given the right to screen three pictures per day for a period of 156 weeks on completion of the construction of the theatre (Scheduled date being 31-5-1978) and on conditions detailed therein. According to the appellant, respondent 1 required a further sum of Rs. 1,75,000. 00 and so, a supplementary agreement Ex. A-2 dated 2-5-1978 was entered into, according to which the appellant advanced the said sum and was given the right to screen pictures for a further period of 156 weeks. Respondent 1 unilaterally put an end to the contract soon after the completion of the 1st 156 weeks on 14-5-1981 as alleged by the appellant herein which resulted in breach of the contract. Therefore, the appellant filed the suit for a declaration that he is entitled to screen pictures for a further period of 156 weeks from 15-7-1981 and for an injunction restraining respondent 1 and his agents from interfering with the exercise of the appellants right. The appellant filed 1. A. No. 754/1981 for temporary in junction, which was, though granted ex parte initially, but later on the application filed by the respondent was vacated. Aggrieved against a civil miscellaneous appeal was preferred in this court and learned single Judge of this court dismissed the same. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal.

( 2 ) THE case of respondent 1 in the main is that he never executed Ex. A-2 agreement and that the appellant has contracted the same on stamp papers containing the signature of respondent 1 and left in the custody of the appellant. He also pleaded that the appellant has an adequate remedy of damages and inasmuch as respondent 1 already entered into an agreement dated 30-6-81 with respondent 2 herein enabling respondent 2 to screen the movies on certain terms and conditions with effect from 15-7-1981, the balance of convenience, therefore, lies more in favour of refusing the grant of injunction.

( 3 ) THE learned subordinate judge held that the plaintiff has not made out any prima facie case and that even otherwise the balance of convenience is in favour of refusing the temporary injunction.

( 4 ) THE learned single Judge of this court in the said civil miscellaneous appeal though observed that the appellant has prima facie established the case, nevertheless, it did not entitle the appellant to the grant of temporary injunction on the ground that the balance of convenience is not in favour of the appellant and also held that he can be adequately compensated by awarding damages.

( 5 ) SRI Seetharamaiah, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that (1) when once the prima facie case is established, the Court will have to grant temporary injunction pending the final adjudication of the suit. (2) The Party cannot be allowed to create conditions on its own and then resist the injunction. (3) In this case damages cannot be ascertained and there, it is not an adequate remedy, and in such circumstances, interim injunction will have to be granted.

( 6 ) THE counter contention of the learned Advocate General is that the mere establishment of prima facie case does not ipso facto clothe the party with a right of temporary injunction to be granted in his favour. Balance of convenience and also irreparable hardship are sine qua non for the issue of injunction.

( 7 ) THE case law cited by the learned counsel at the bar may be noticed. Meuxs Brewery Company v. City of London Electric Lighting Company (1895

Click Here to Read the rest of this document