A plaint cannot be rejected in part where an admitted claim discloses a cause of action against a defendant.

The plaintiff and the first defendant entered into a Lab Finance Agreement under which the first defendant agreed to lend ₹50 lakh for production of the film Sakunthalavin Kathalan.

The plaintiff alleged that only ₹12.5 lakh of the first scheduled payment was made and that the first defendant failed to provide the agreed services.

The second defendant exhibited the film in theatres on the plaintiff’s authorisation dated 29 December 2022, but stopped screening it after receiving a notice from the first defendant alleging outstanding dues

The plaintiff sued for recovery of money and damages, and sought a mandatory injunction directing release of the film.

The plaintiff also applied for an interim direction to release it; the second defendant applied to reject the plaint, contending that no cause of action was pleaded against it

Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an interim mandatory direction for release of the film when that relief was also sought in the suit and the first defendant’s stop notice had not been challenged by a prayer for declaration

Whether the plaint could be rejected on the ground that it disclosed no cause of action against the second defendant, particularly when the plaintiff sought relief against it concerning exhibition of the film

The Court referred to the Specific Relief Act in considering whether the mandatory relief sought in the suit could be granted at the interim stage, but did not identify a particular provision

It applied the principle that an interim mandatory injunction should not ordinarily grant the same relief sought in the suit where doing so would effectively determine the main relief and render the suit infructuous before trial

It also applied the settled principle that a plaint cannot be rejected in part.

The Court found that the film had already been exhibited by the second defendant and that screening stopped following the first defendant’s notice alleging unpaid dues; the parties did not dispute the notice

In the absence of a prayer seeking a declaration concerning that communication, the Court held that the requested release direction could not be entertained on a prima facie basis.

Further, granting the same mandatory relief at the interim stage would effectively dispose of the main relief without trial

As to rejection of the plaint, the plaintiff’s pleaded and admitted case included that the second defendant had obtained the plaintiff’s authorisation to exhibit the film.

The Court therefore declined to reject the plaint solely on the asserted absence of a cause of action against the second defendant, and noted that partial rejection of a plaint was impermissible

There was no order as to costs