Failure to implead necessary parties and legal infirmities in the agreement can lead to the dismissal of a suit.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

CM No. 39459/2017 (delay in filing) & CM No. 39458/2017 (delay in re-filing)

For the reasons stated in the applications, delays in filing and re-filing the appeal are condoned.

CMs stand disposed of.

RFA No. 917/2017

1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellant/plaintiff impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 20.5.2017 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for recovery of Rs. 16 lacs on account of defendants telecasting the film “Nehle Pe Dehla” on 5.10.2007 allegedly without any permission as required from the appellant/plaintiff. In the suit injunction was also claimed against respondents/defendants from telecasting the film “Nehle Pe Dehla” on 5.10.2007 or on any other date except upon making necessary payment and taking consent of the appellant/plaintiff.

2. The facts of the case are that appellant/plaintiff filed the subject suit claiming ownership rights in the film “Nehle Pe Dehla” and therefore entitlement to claim the royalty charges on account of telecasting of the film by Doordarshan on DD-1 on 5.10.2007. In the plaint it was pleaded that appellant/plaintiff had received terrestrial TV rights in the subject film from the owner M/s. Dhariwal Films Pvt. Ltd. in terms of an agreement dated 1.10.2007, and that therefore it was only the appellant/plaintiff who was entitled to telecast/royalty rights in the subject film. As per the plaint, the respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 without obtaining permission/consent from the appellant/plaintiff telecasted the subject film on 5.10.2007. It is also pleaded in the plaint that appellant/plaintiff came to know that one Mr. Rajesh Jain for and on behalf of M/s. Parchar Communication Ltd. had got published a public notice dated 23.5.2009 in the magazine “Complete Cinema” claiming terrestrial rights in the subject film, but such claim was refuted by the appellant/plaintiff by issuing a public notice dated 30.5.2009 in the same magazine. Appellant/plaintiff thereafter served a legal notice dated 15.1.2008 upon the respondents/defendants and then filed the subject suit.

3. Respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 contested the suit by filing a written statement and pleaded that the owner of the film M/s. Dhariwal Films Pvt. Ltd. has signed an agreement with M/s. Parchar Communications Ltd. giving rights in the subject film to M/s. Parchar Communications Ltd. and that M/s. Parchar Communications Ltd. assigned rights in the subject film to M/s. Aarushi Films and who vide its letter dated 14.8.2007 allowed a single telecast of the subject film on DD-1 Channel, and therefore, this telecast took place on 5.10.2007. As per the written statement since M/s. Parchar Communications Ltd. has authorized M/s. Aarushi Films to deal and negotiate with the respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 in respect of the telecast of the film consequently an agreement was signed between M/s. Aarushi Films and the respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 for the terrestrial rights of the subject film and hence the telecast on 5.10.2007. It was further pleaded in the written statement of the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 that appellant/plaintiff failed to provide the requisite link documents showing ownership of the film whereas M/s. Aarushi Films has provided all the linked documents. The suit was hence prayed to be dismissed.

4. After pleadings were completed the following issues were framed in the suit:-

“1. Whether the suit in its present form is maintainable?

2. Whether the suit is barred by Section 41(h) (I) & (j) of Specific Relief Act?

3. Whether the suit is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties? OPD1

4. Whether terrestrial TV rights of Hindi Feature Film-”Nehle Pe Dehla” vests with the plaintiff when same was telecast on doordarshan on 05.10.07? OPP

5. Whether the agreement dated 01.10.07 entered into between plaintiff and M/s. Dhariwal Films Pvt. Ltd Mumbai is a forged and fabricated document? OPD1

6.