Another sait if barred by Order 2, Rule 2 r/w Explanation IV to Section 11.

Mishra, J.

This appeal is directed against a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court under which he has decreed the suit in part for declaration and rendition of accounts only with proportionate costs.

2. The plaintiff/respondent herein instituted a suit in the City Civil Court being O.S.No.10529 of 1976 for a declaration that the plaintiff alone is entitled to the negative rights of a Tamil talkie film “Kai Kodutha Deivam” in all its versions in respect to the entire world excluding certain specified territories. He, however, filed another suit viz., CS.No.l24 of l980 on the Original side of this Court for the relief of declaration common to the suit in the City Civil Court and for rendition of accounts and payment of special damages tot he tune of Rs.5,000 by defendants 1,2 and 4 to 9. The first defendant in C.S.No. 124 of 1980 filed a suit in the City Civil Court being O.S.No.291 of 1979, which was transferred to this Court for being tried along with C.S.No.124 of 1980 (renumbered as C.S.No.48 of 1985). This suit was also for rendition of accounts in respect of the sale and production of a movie picture in Telugu and Malayalam versions and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from exercising any rights in regard to the distribution of the said picture in Telugu and Malayalam. After the issue of Judge’s summons in the suit C.S.No.124 of 1980, the plaintiff/respondent herein withdrew the suit in the City Civil Court O.S.No.10529 of 1976 on 24. 1980.

3. The plaintiffs case in C.S.No.124 of 1980 has been summarised in the tiral court’s Judgment in these words:

"The first defendant was producing a picture titled as ‘production No.1’ and later as ‘Kai Kodutha Daivam’ in Tamil. The dialogue and screen-play were written by the plaintiff and he was directing the picture. The first defendant originally entered into a financial agreement with Dwaraka Pictures and they could not finance as agreed. Hence the first defendant entered into an agreement dated 37. 1963 with the third defendant for financial assistance for further production and completion of the picture. The said agreement was executed by the plaintiff, the first defendant and the third defendant. As per the terms of the agreement, the third defendant, in addition to the sum of Rs.1,28,999 already advanced by them, shall advance a further sum totalling Rs.4,50,000 towards outright sale of the negative rights of the above picture for distribution, exhibition and exploitation of the picture including the dubbing version and all dimensions of the picture for the areas of far east territories, Singapore, Malaya, Borneo, Sarawak, Indonesia, Siam, Indo-China and Islands of Fiji, the areas of North Arcot, South Arcot, Chittoor, Chingleput District including Pon-dicherry, Madurai and Ramanathapuram Districts, for the abovesaid consideration. Under the abovesaid agreement, the plaintiff was given the negative rights for the rest of the areas by the third defendant relinquishing their negative rights to the knowledge of the first defendant. The plaintiff was also given the power to complete the said picture and the parties agreed to give all co-operation to the plaintiff in this regard. In pursuance of the said agreement, the plaintiff completed the film by spending Rs.3,00,000 and the film was first censored on 7. 1964 and released at several centres. The plaintiffs right as negative-holder has been ratified by the first defendant in several subsequent transactions in pursuance of the agreement dated 37. 1963. As per the amendment of the Censor Rules in 1975, the plaintiff was obliged to apply to the censor authorities for re-censoring of the said film ‘Kai Kodutha Daivam’ on 12. 1976 since ten years’ period had already elapsed. The first defendant claiming to be the producer objected to the said application by the plaintiff and he sought for re-censor of the film in his favour by application dated 10. 1976 and the re-censor certificate was issue