The plaintiffs were entitled to the repayment of the claimed amount with interest, but lacked evidence to support the claim for damages and mandatory injunction.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Order VII Rule 1 CPC read with Order IV Rule 1 of OS Rules, to pass a Judgment and Decree in favour of the plaintiffs:-

a) directing the defendants 1 to 2 to pay a sum of Rs.4,34,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Thirty Four Lakhs only) together with interest on Rs.3,50,00,000/- at 24% per annum from the date of plaint till realisation;

b) directing the defendants 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Only) to the plaintiffs for monthly damages for using the plaintiffs' Decoration and furniture materials for every month from 15.04.2019 to 08.10.2020 and pay future monthly damages of Rs.2,00,000/- for month from the date of plaint to till the defendants 1 to 3 are returning the entire furniture materials ie., all Chairs, Tables, TVs and all kinds of Decoration materials to the plaintiffs,

c) Grant Mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 to 3 to return the entire furniture materials ie., Chairs, Tables, TVs and all kinds of Decoration materials and etc., which are clearly mentioned in the Item No.2 of suit schedule property to the plaintiffs.)

1. The plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking a direction against the first and second defendants to pay a sum of Rs.4,34,00,000/- together with interest at Rs.3,50,00,000/- at 24% p.a., from the date of filing of the plaint till realisation and for a further direction against the first, second and third defendants to pay a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- to the plaintiffs for monthly damages for using the materials of the plaintiffs from 15.04.2019 to 08.10.2020 and also for a mandatory injunction directing the first to third defendants to return the furniture materials of the plaintiffs and also for costs of the suit.

2. Even before proceeding further, it must be mentioned that a memo has been filed by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs dated 04.08.2022 wherein it had been very specifically stated that the suit is not pressed against the third defendant. Recording the said memo, the suit is dismissed against the third defendant.

3. The first and second defendants had been set ex-parte by an order dated 18.02.2022. The fourth defendant had filed A.No. 1183 of 2021 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC claiming that there was no cause of action for the plaintiffs to institute the suit against the fourth defendant. That application had come up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court and by an order dated 30.11.2021, the suit had been rejected in so far as the fourth defendant is concerned.

4. Let me straight away state that whenever the order copy is issued, the Registry must indicate in the cause title itself that the suit had been rejected by an order dated 30.11.2021 in A.No. 1183 of 2021 against the fourth defendant.

5. The plaint proceeds on the basis that the first and second defendants who had entered into a partnership to share profits with respect to the running of a Kalyana Mandapam and had obtained a sum of Rs.3.50 crores from the plaintiffs toward the furniture and fixtures to be provided for the Kalyana Mandapam and for decoration items and such other requirements. The amount also included the expenditure to be spent on the actual construction of the Kalyana Mandapam.

6. The plaintiffs naturally expected that in lieu of advance of such amounts to the first and second defendants, whenever any function was conducted in the marriage hall, they would be called upon to do the allied event management job for which they could independently charge from the customers, who use the Kalyana Mandapam. Unfortunately, though the first and second defendant had so received a sum of Rs.3.50 crores from the plaintiffs, they had an understanding with the third defendant, who was called upon to do the decoration and other event Management related aspects for functions conducted in the Kalyana Mandapam. This was a cause of grievance for the plaintiffs.

7. The plaintiffs had addressed a notice to the first and second defendants pointing