Pleadings and Applications

Kishan Patel
17BBL020

PLAINT
 IN THE HON’BLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI.

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURICDICTION

Civil suit No. 319 of 2012

Chetan Bhagat s/o Shekhar Bhagat, Hindu, aged 40 years,

r/o 121/C, Jalsa bungalows, Santacruz, Mumbai, 302021. [Plaintiff]

Versus

Raju Hirani s/o Sanjay Hirani, Hindu, aged 43 years,

r/o G-22, Galaxy Apartment, Bandra, Mumbai, 302011. [Defendant]

The plaintiff abovementioned states as follows: -

i) That, the plaintiff is a playwright, dramatist and producer of stage plays by

profession and has written and produced many known plays.

ii) That in 2010 Mr. X had written a play titled “Hum Hindustani “depicting the

theme of provincialism and it soon became very popular.

iii) That, Defendant, Mr Raju Hirani, a producer of film came across this play and

was very impressed with the concept and the narration of the story.
iv) That, he defendant Raju Hirani sent a letter to the plaintiff that he wishes to make

a movie based on the play. The plaintiff met the defendant and discussed the

entire play and gave permission for the same on about 10th March 2010.

v) That, after about six months in around the month of August, the defendant

communicates to the plaintiff that, he is not able to produce the movie out of this

play as the story and the script is very short and movie out of this cannot be made,

with which the plaintiff agreed and was with which the plaintiff was fine.

vi) That, the cause of action arose in the year 2012, when the defendant releases a

movie title ‘2 States’ based on the concept of provincialism; a love story of boy

from south India who want to marry a girl from north India.

vii) That, after watching the movie, the plaintiff was of the opinion that it is based on

the story of his play.

viii) The plaintiff claims that, the defendant has produced a movie based on the play

written by him without the permission of the plaintiff.

ix) That, the plaintiff and the defendant both resides in the Mumbai and the fraud was

taken place at Mumbai too. So, the present matter is well within the jurisdiction of

this Hon’ble Court. Also, the value of the subject matter of this suit for the

purpose of jurisdiction is Rs. 2,00,000/- as well as it is the same for the purpose of

court fees.

x) That, the plaintiff will rely upon the documents listed whereof is hereto annexed

as an Annexure A.

xi) The plaintiff therefore prays,

- That, the plaintiff seeks permanent injunction and the defendant

may be ordered to pay the plaintiff the compensatory amount for

committing fraud with the plaintiff. And compensate the plaintiff

 by paying the original fees for using the playwright of the plaintiff.

i.e. Rs. 75,00,000/- (Seventy-Five Lakhs).

- That, the defendant may be ordered to be punished for the fraud

and Infringement of Copyright.

- The defendant should be ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs of

the suit i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs).

Mr. Chetan Bhagat

(Plaintiff)

VERIFICATION

I, Mr. Chetan Bhagat, the plaintiff abovenamed, do solemnly declare that what is

stated in paras i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi and vii is true to my own knowledge and that what is stated in

remaining paras is stated on the information and belief and I believe the same to be true.

Chetan Bhagat

(Plaintiff)
 AFFIDAVIT

IN THE HON’BLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI.

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURICDICTION

Civil suit No. 319 of 2012

Mr. Chetan Bhagat [Plaintiff]

v/s

Mr. Raju Hirani [Defendant]

I, Mr. Chetan Bhagat, the plaintiff abovenamed, do solemnly declare that what is

stated in paras i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi and vii is true to my own knowledge and that what is stated in

remaining paras is stated on the information and belief and I believe the same to be true.

Solemnly declared: Chetan Bhagat

At Mumbai, Maharashtra, (Plaintiff)
On the 18th September, 2012.

*****
WRITTEN STATEMENT
 IN THE HON’BLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI.

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURICDICTION

Civil suit No. 319 of 2012

Chetan Bhagat s/o Shekhar Bhagat, Hindu, aged 40 years,

r/o 121/C, Jalsa bungalows, Santacruz, Mumbai, 302021. [Plaintiff]

Versus

Raju Hirani s/o Sanjay Hirani, Hindu, aged 43 years,

r/o G-22, Galaxy Apartment, Bandra, Mumbai, 302011. [Defendant]

The defendant abovementioned states as follows:

i) That, the defendant in the execution of this written statement, all the

allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint, as abovenamed, are farce and

baseless and in fact the defendant contends that the plaintiff himself

committed the breach of the contract.

ii) That, the defendant contends that the suit filed by Mr. Chetan Bhagat, the

plaintiff, is not maintainable.

iii) That, the defendant admits the facts stated in the para (iii) by the plaintiff in

the plaint that the defendant surely liked the playwright of the plaintiff and

called the plaintiff at my office to produce the movie on the same.

iv) That, the defendant agrees with the facts stated in the para (iv) by the plaintiff

in the plaint that on 10th March 2010, after meeting the plaintiff and

understanding whole play, the defendant asked for the permission to make the

movie on the playwright of the plaintiff.

v) That, on the same day, the defendant and the plaintiff further entered into the

written agreement that the defendant would pay Rs. 35,00,000 /- (Thirty-five

lakhs) to the plaintiff in return of the permission to use the playwright of the

plaintiff. The copy of the said agreement is annexed herewith as Annexure A

vi) The defendant further contends that, after 3 months of the written agreement

above mentioned, the plaintiff sold the copyright of the same playwright to

other producer, in the greed of more money, to make the same movie which

the defendants was planning to make and committed the breach of contract.

vii) That, the defendant agrees with the facts stated in the para (vi) by the plaintiff

in the plaint that in the year 2012, the defendant releases a movie title ‘2

States’ based on the concept of provincialism; a love story of boy from south

India who want to marry a girl from north India but further states that the story

line of the movie ‘2 States’ was sold to the defendants by other writer named

‘Salim Khan’ and it was completely original. So, the defendant completely

disagrees with the facts stated in the para (viii) by the plaintiff in the plaint

that the defendant has produced a movie based on the play written by plaintiff

without his permission.

 viii) The defendant further contends that the plaintiff is putting totally wrong and

baseless allegations on the defendant because the movie of the defendant was

released before the movie of the plaintiff and because of the same theme the

movie of the plaintiff didn’t work well in business.

ix) The defendants pray that:

- That, the plaintiff should be punished for committing breach of contract

and ordered to return back the amount of Rs. 35,00,000 /- (Thirty-five

lakhs) which was taken as the consideration in the written contract.

- That, the plaintiff should be ordered to compensate the defendant for the

loss incurred breach of contract that is Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen lakhs)

- The plaintiff should be ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of the suit

i.e. Rs. 2,50,000/- (Two Lakhs fifty thousand).

Mr. Raju Hirani

(Defendant)

VERIFICATION

I, Mr. Raju Hirani, the defendant abovenamed, do solemnly declare that what is stated

in paras i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi and vii is true to my own knowledge and that what is stated in

remaining paras is stated on the information and belief and I believe the same to be true.
 Mr. Raju Hirani

(Defendant)

AFFIDAVIT

IN THE HON’BLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI.

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURICDICTION

Civil suit No. 319 of 2012

Mr. Chetan Bhagat [Plaintiff]

v/s

Mr. Raju Hirani [Defendant]

I, Mr. Raju Hirani, the defendant abovenamed, do solemnly declare that what is stated

in paras i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi and vii is true to my own knowledge and that what is stated in

remaining paras is stated on the information and belief and I believe the same to be true.

Solemnly declared: Mr. Raju Hirani

At Mumbai, Maharashtra, (Defendant)
On the 2nd October, 2012.
 *****

APPLICATION FOR
INTERROGATORIES
 IN THE HON’BLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI.

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURICDICTION

Civil suit No. 319 of 2012

Chetan Bhagat s/o Shekhar Bhagat, Hindu, aged 40 years,

r/o 121/C, Jalsa bungalows, Santacruz, Mumbai, 302021. [Plaintiff]

Versus

Raju Hirani s/o Sanjay Hirani, Hindu, aged 43 years,

r/o G-22, Galaxy Apartment, Bandra, Mumbai, 302011. [Defendant]

I.A. No – 3

Mr. Raju Hirani [Applicant]

v/s

Mr. Chetan Bhagat [Opponent]

 APPLICATION U/O-11 RULE-1 CPC FOR INTERROGATORIES
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE – APPENDEX C-FORM NO 1
INTERROGATORIES (O. 11, r. 1)
The Applicant abovementioned most respectfully submits as herein under: -

i) That the above titled case is pending in this Hon’ble Court.

ii) As the matter of facts, the entire case can be decided on merit via discovery by

Interrogatories under Order 11 of the code of civil procedure.

iii) Therefore, the applicant requests that the opponent may be ordered to admit or to

deny on oath the document list and the question list which is to submitted by the

applicant.

iv) That, the reason behind filing this application is to save the expenses by enabling

the applicant to obtain from the opponent necessary and relevant information to

the issues in the dispute between the parties and to obtain admissions on the facts

which the opponent needs to prove or have as issue with.

v) That, all the details relating the interrogatories and the list of the questions will be

submitted to the court by the applicant after once the court passes this order of

interrogatories. (o.11, r.1)

vi) That, the present filed application should be passed in the interest of the justice

and as the court thinks fit as this order can either play major part to support the

case of the opponent or it will destroy it completely.

vii) That, under Rule-1 of Order-11 CPC a party is given the power to interrogate his

opposite party with a view to discover what case he has to meet and facts to relied

upon and to find out what is really in issue.

 viii) That, if the present application is permitted by this Hon’ble Court, the time for

concluding following trial would be cut short and will also save the expenses of

the litigants.

ix) The list of questions is attached in Annexure A. The defendant is willing to

pay the costs.

PRAYER: -

In the light of the above, the applicant in the above matter most respectfully and

humbly prays that this Hon’ble court under the circumstances that the Interrogatories

application may kindly accepted and allow the applicant to put the Interrogatories

after the required notice, in the interest of justice.

Place: Mumbai (Maharashtra) Mr. Raju

Hirani

Date: 20th June, 2012 (Applicant)

 ANNEXURE A

(ORDER 11 RULE 4)
List of Questions

Interrogatories on behalf of the above-named Applicant (Defendant), Mr. Raju

Hirani, for the examination of the above-named Opponent (Plaintiff) Mr. Chetan

Bhagat:

1. What are the exact similarities between the script of the play and the film?

2. Was the plaintiff not given compensation for the entire six months he worked

with the defendant by cheque?

3. If you contend that the defendant has committed fraud and misused your

playwright without your permission, present the circumstances which state the

basis of your contention.

4. Was the plaintiff not given compensation for the credit of the original script?

5. Identify every representation that you contend is false or misleading that the

Defendants expressly made in their statements and state the basis of your

contention.

6. Did any kind of contact that had taken place between you and the defendant

that had taken place after you came to know about the fraud.
 7. Please explain the conversation under question 6.

The Opponent (plaintiff), Mr. Chetan Bhagat, is required to answer the

interrogatories numbered 1 to 7.

Date – 20th June 2012 Sahil Shah

Advocat

APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT

 IN THE HON’BLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI.

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURICDICTION

Civil suit No. 319 of 2012

Chetan Bhagat s/o Shekhar Bhagat, Hindu, aged 40 years,

r/o 121/C, Jalsa bungalows, Santacruz, Mumbai, 302021. [Plaintiff]

Versus

Raju Hirani s/o Sanjay Hirani, Hindu, aged 43 years,

r/o G-22, Galaxy Apartment, Bandra, Mumbai, 302011. [Defendant]

A.A. No – 4

Mr. Raju Hirani [Applicant]

v/s
Mr. Chetan Bhagat [Opponent]

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT FOR

AMENDMENT OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT

The applicant hereby request/pray the amendment in the written statement of para 5

for the reasons stated in the affidavit attached.

GROUNDS:

i) That the aforesaid proposed amendment is not inconsistent with the original version

of the applicant taken in the written statement.

ii) The applicant agrees with the facts but since this matter was about a year ago the

applicant got confused in the certain matters.

iii) As the matter is yet in sub juice, this Hon’ble court has the authority to take

cognizance of the events relating to the subject matter of the Written Statement

that transpire during the pendency of this suit under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC.

iv) That the amendment is not inconsistent with the written statement submitted

earlier.

v) That applicant humbly seeks permission of this Learned Court to raise additional

grounds at the stage of arguments.

The plaintiff is ready to pay the costs of the same.

PRAYER:

In aforementioned circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may allow the

applicant to amend their written statement in the afore-titled application.

Place: Mumbai (Maharashtra) Mr. Raju Hirani

Date: 25th June, 2012 (Applicant)

AFFIDAVIT

IN THE HON’BLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI.

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURICDICTION

Civil suit No. 319 of 2012

Mr. Chetan Bhagat [Plaintiff]

v/s

Mr. Raju Hirani [Defendant]

I, Raju Hirani, s/o Sanjay Hirani, Hindu, aged 43 years, r/o G-22, Galaxy Apartment,

Bandra, Mumbai, 302011, the defendant above named, do hereby solemnly affirm and

declare as under:

1. That titled civil suit is pending for adjudication before this Learned Court for today

i.e. 25th June 2012.

2. That, the applicant humble submit that the para 5 of the written statement is as

follows;

‘That, on the same day, the defendant and the plaintiff further entered into the written

agreement that the defendant would pay Rs. 35,00,000 /- (Thirty-five lakhs) to the plaintiff in

return of the permission to use the playwright of the plaintiff. The copy of the said agreement

is annexed herewith as Annexure A’

the applicant humbly seeks indulgence of this Learned Court for seeking permission to

amend paragraph No. 5 of the written statement; proposed amendment is as following:

‘That, on the same day, the defendant and the plaintiff further entered into the written

agreement that the defendant would pay Rs. 45,00,000 /- (Forty-five lakhs) to the plaintiff in

return of the permission to use the playwright of the plaintiff. The copy of the said agreement

is annexed herewith as Annexure A’

3. That inadvertently, aforesaid fact i.e. proposed amendment was wrongly added in the

written statement, therefore, humbly requested that the permission is sought from this

Learned Court for amendment of written statement as stated above inter-alia on the

following.

Solemnly declared: Mr. Raju Hirani

At Mumbai, Maharashtra, (Defendant)

On the 2nd October, 2012.