The suit has been filed for issuing mandatory direction directing the 1st defendant to take/initiate action against the 2nd defendant from misusing his name without his consent, permission like; he did in C.S.No.598 of 2014 within a stipulated period of four weeks and in the event of failure to do so, declare that there is collusion between them and to impose cost.

2. The plaintiff's case in nutshell is as follows:

The Plaintiff is party in person and said to be a film financier advancing amounts to various persons. The 1st defendant is the very famous actor not only in the State but also in the country known as "Super Star Rajnikanth". The 2nd Defendant is R. Krishnamurthy @ Kasthuri Raja whose son married the 1st Defendant daughter. The 2nd defendant is also in the production side of the Cinema. He has approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs.40 lakhs on 02.01.2012 and executed a pro-note. On 13.07.2012 he again approached the plaintiff for a further loan of Rs.25 lakhs. The plaintiff has informed his inability to pay further as he had already borrowed Rs.40 lakhs. At that time the 2nd defendant represented that his son Dhanush is also a famous actor, he has married the daughter of 1st defendant and now Super Star is his sammandhi and further added that even if the 2nd defendant is not able to pay the amount either his son or 1st defendant will repay the amount. In this regard he has also given an undertaking and received a sum of Rs.25 lakhs. Thereafter, the 2nd defendant could not pay the amount. Therefore, the plaintiff preferred criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. No. 411 of 2013 and C.C. No. 473 of 2013.

3. It is the main contention of the plaintiff that he advanced the amount on bonafide impression that the 1st defendant s consent was obtained by the 2nd defendant while making such an undertaking and borrowing the money. Therefore, he gave a complaint in the year 2012 to enquire whether the 1st defendant s consent was obtained while giving such an undertaking. However, the above complaint was closed. Thereafter, he has also filed Crl. O.P. in this court for seeking investigation. That petition was also dismissed by this Court. In the meanwhile, the 1stdefendant has filed the suit in C.S.598 of 2014 against one M/s. Varsha Productions for misusing his name and got an injunction. The above news was widely published in the newspaper and on came to know the above facts, the plaintiff has filed a petition impleading himself in the above suit in Application No.1787 of 2015. In the above application, the 1st defendant filed counter stating that he never authorised or permitted the 2nd defendant to use his name for any such transaction. It is the contention of the plaintiff that if the above counter was earlier filed, criminal case would have been registered against the 2nd respondent under Section 420 I.P.C. Thereafter C.S. No. 598 of 2014 was compromised between the 1st defendant and varsha productions. It is the further contention of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant has not taken any action against the second defendant. Hence he prayed for a decree against the defendants for mandatory direction, directing the 2nd defendant from misusing 1st defendant's name without his consent, permission within the stipulated period of 4 weeks and in the event of failure to do so, to declare that there is collusion between the 1st and 2nd defendant and other reliefs. The defendants have also filed Application Nos.4433 and 4747 of 2015 to reject the plaint, which are also taken into consideration of this Court.

4. Heard both sides. The main contention of the party-in-person before this Court is that, he has advanced money to the 2nd defendant on his representation that his son or 1st defendant would take care, if he failed to pay the amount. Only on such representation he gave money to the 2nd defendant, however the cheque was dishonoured. Thereafter when the 1st defendant has filed the