A binding contract exists between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 to hold Jatra performance, and the defendant No. 1 is restrained from joining and/or continuing to act and/or perform as an artiste with the defendant No. 2 or any other Jatra Party or cinema or any concern whatsoever during 1400-1401 B. S.

( 1 ) THIS is an application filed by the plaintiff Makhanlal Natta, carrying on business under the name and style of "natta Company Jatra Party", inter alia, praying for an order of injunction restraining the defendants from publishing any announcement or giving any insertion in any newspaper or publishing to the public any statement or announcement that the defendant No. 1 Tridib Ghosh is no longer connected with Natta Company Jatra Party and also for an injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from joining or continuing to be connected with the defendant No. 2 Bharati Opera and for other reliefs.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the sole proprietor of Natta Company Jatra Party which carries on business as producers of Jatra and dramatic and musical performance on stage for reward. Defendant No. 1 Tridib Ghosh is an actor and artiste by profession who gives dramatic performances on stage and participates in Jatra for consideration. The further case of the plaintiff is that on 25/10/1992 corresponding to 8th Kartick 1399 B. S. , the defendant No. 1 agreed to work as an artiste and/or actor with the plaintiff's Jatra Party at a monthly remuneration of Rs. 36,000. 00 for a period commencing from Durga Puja 1400 B. S. upto Jaistha 1401 B. S. on certain tems and conditions as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the petition. The defendant No. 1 executed an agreement (Chuktipatra) wherein the defendant No. 1 agreed that he will not join any other theatre, Jatra or cinema company or help any such party in any manner and if he assists any Theatre or Jatra Party or Cinema Company, then he will be liable to pay damages to the petitioner. In pursuance of the said agreement the defendant No. 1 was paid a sum of Rs. 2105. 00 as earnest and/or advance. On the same date i. e. 25/10/1992 the petitioner entered into another agreement with the defendant No. 1 wherein the defendant agreed to work as an actor in plaintiff's Jatra Party from Aswin 1401 B. S. to Jaistha 1402 B. S. and under the said agreement the petitioner paid the defendant No. 1 a sum of Rs. 1001. 00 by way of advance and/or earnest money. Under the said agreement the defendant No. 1 is also to receive a sum of Rs. 1500. 00 per appearance or performance during the period of the second agreement. Plaintiff's further case is that on the basis of the said agreements the plaintiff planned to launch a Jatra performance in the name of "ojon KORA BHALOBASA" under his banner of "natta Company Jatra Party" to be staged during the coming Jatra season i. e. from Aswin to Chaitra. The petitioner invested a large sum of money for launching the above mentioned new jatra and the investments are in the nature of appointment of writer, preparation of script engagement of other artistes, appointment of singers, appointment of dancers, appointment of orchestra hands, technical supervisors, costumes, design etc.

( 3 ) THE defendant No. 2 also carries on business of producing Jatra and dramatic and musical performances on stage for reward. The plaintiff was surprised to read an advertisement published in the Ananda Bazar Patrika on 11/04/1993 wherein it transpired that the defendant No. 1 is to continue with the Jatra Group of the defendant No. 2 as an artiste of the Jatra "phansir MANCHE MATIR MAA" to be launched by the defendant No. 2 and the said Jatra was also scheduled to be performed during the season 1400 B. S. to 1401 B. S. There was another publication on 14/04/1993 in the Ananda Bazar Patrika intimating the public that the defendant No. 1 would act as an artiste of the Jatra "phansir MANCHE MATIR MAA". Ultimately the plaintiff brought the present suit. Copies of the Bengali agreements with translations are annexed to the petition and the publications made in the Ananda Bazar Patrika are also annexed to the petition.

( 4 ) THE defendant No. 1 contested the application by filing affidavit-in-opposition. The defendant No. 1 denied that on 25-10-1992 h