BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT OF UDAIPUR AT UDAIPUR

Suit No. 4320 of 2019

IN THE MATTER OF

Mr. Ram Prasad, 32

s/o Mr. Kishan Prasad
80,
CG Road
Udaipur ...Plaintiff

Versus

Mr. Shubham Singh, 40

s/o Mr. Kunal Singh,
C/4320Palash enclave Apartments,
Opp. Royal Palace
Udaipur …Defendant

Suit for the breach of contract

PLAINT FILED UNDER SECTION 26 READ WITH ORDER VII OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE CODE

Most Respectfully Showeth,

1. That the plaintiff in the present case is a playwright, dramatist and producer of stage
play by profession residing at abovementioned address.
2. That defendant is by profession a film producer, residing at the abovementioned
address. Hereinafter both the parties will be referred as plaintiff and defendant
respectively.
3. That in the year 2019, the plaintiff wrote a play and produced a stag play titled ‘Hum
Hindustani’ based on the theme of provincialism. Owing to the theme of the play and
 storyline it became extremely popular among people of varying ages and was a hit in
a very short period of time.
4. That the defendant was incredibly dazzled by the idea and depiction of story and in
this manner in December, 2019, he approached with a thought of making a film based
on the play, which may include enormous star station and be released around the
globe.
5. That so as to offer an impact to the above arrangement, on 10 January 2019 the
defendant welcomes the plaintiff to talk about over the proposition and take his work
to a bigger group of spectators. The plaintiff consented to the proposition and the
making of the movie is finished with the discharge date not specifically chosen. In
lieu of the equivalent, an contract dated 21 January 2019 was marked between both
the gatherings, referencing the exchange of copyright, eminence to be paid for the
equivalent and other subordinate themes identifying with the previously mentioned
arrangement.
6. That approximately following a half year from the date of the above said
understanding, the defendant composed an email to the plaintiff referencing that the
film couldn't be made out of the play, taking into account that the play is short and
film made out of this play would not be a hit and along these lines the play to make
the film is disposed of and hence no thought will be paid to the plaintiff.
7. That in the year 2019 on 02 August 2019, the plaintiff after considerable requests of
months to make film on the play , the defendant discharged a film titled "Hum
Hindustani" using only the title of play and earning the profits of the movie from the
name of the popular play.
8. That the defendant declined that a movie couldn't be produced using the play by
giving an unstable explanation that the play was short, the defendant avoided the
plaintiff so any cash as to from the copyright and the 50 % of the profits earned from
movie as per the contract.
9. That by making a movie without the inclusion of plot from the play and using the
name of the play composed by the plaintiff, the defendant has ruptured the contract
made between dated 21 January 2019.
10. That the present plaint is documented inside the confinement of time frame, and along
these lines isn't barred by it.
 11. That the cause of action for the suit arose on 02 August 2019, when the defendant
released the film without including the plot of the play and even taking under
defendant's the exchange of copyright.
12. That the understanding was gone into in Udaipur and both the gatherings are dwelling
in Udaipur, consequently, well within the pecuniary Jurisdiction the learned court.
13. That the estimation of the topic of the suit is Rs. 5,00,00,000/ - is well within the
pecuniary Jurisdiction the learned court.
14. That the plaintiff has not filed any suit against the Defendant and no suit is pending
between the parties in regard to being asserted in the suit.
15. That for the purposes of court fees, the plaintiff values this suit at Rs. 5,000/- and pays
the court fee of Rs, 1.50 accordingly.
PRAYER
(A) That the defendant ought to be ordered to honour the contract entered between
him and defendant
(B) That the defendant must compensate the plaintiff damages as the defendant has
encroached the copyright of the plaintiff's work. The measure of harms ought to
be Rs. 5,00,00,000/
(C) That the defendant must compensation the plaintiff Rs 10,000/ - as remuneration
for mental provocation and distress.
(D) That the defendant ought to be requested to stop the advertising and screening of
the film for now till the finishing of the suit. The plaintiff prays that permanent
injunction ought to be passed with respect to the equivalent.
(E) The plaintiff prays that the court may pass any other request which may regard fir
for the interests of justice, equity and good conscience.

Place: Udaipur Date: 20th September

Mr. Ram Prasad, Udaipur Counsel for the Petitioner,

PLAINTIFF Adv. Lamha

VERIFICATION
I Mr. Ram Prasad, 32 s/o Mr. Kishan Prasad 80, Timothy Estates CG Road Udaipur do solemnly
declare that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 9 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
content in remaining paragraphs are based on the belief and information believe it to be true and
correct.

Solemnly Declare
Mr. Ram Prasad, Udaipur
PLAINTIFF
At Udaipur Plaintiff’s Signature
 AFFIDAVIT
BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT OF UDAIPUR AT UDAIPUR

Suit No. 4320 of 2019

IN THE MATTER OF

Mr. Ram Prasad ...Plaintiff

Versus

Mr. Shubham Singh …Defendant

The deponent does hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the accompanying plaint has
been drafted by my counsel as per my instructions and statement of facts made therein is
correct to my knowledge and best of my belief, and statement of law made therein is correct
as per information received and believed to be correct.

Mr. Ram Prasad, Udaipur

DEPONENT
 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT OF UDAIPUR AT UDAIPUR

Suit No. 4320 of 2019

IN THE MATTER OF

Mr. Ram Prasad, 32

s/o Mr. Kishan Prasad
80, Timothy Estates
CG Road
Udaipur ...Plaintiff

Versus

Mr. Shubham Singh, 40

s/o Mr. Kunal Singh,
C/4320Palash enclave Apartments,
Opp. Royal Palace
Udaipur …Defendant

Date of Hearing:…….....

Written statement filed by defendant

under Order VIII, RL 1, C.P.C

WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED UNDER VIII OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE

The defendant respectfully states as follows:

1. I, the defendant in the present case is a filmmaker by calling living at the previously
mentioned location. The plaintiff is a playwright, dramatist, and producer of the stage
 play by profession, dwelling at the previously mentioned location. Hereinafter both
the parties will allude as the defendant and plaintiff separately. That the contents of
paragraph 2 of the plaint are facts and are undisputed.
2. That the contents of paragraph 3 of the plaint are facts and are undisputed.
3. That the claims made in 4th paragraph are just incompletely right where a considerable
lot of the realities are wrongly exhibited before the Court. On 12 January 2011, the
defendant invited the plaintiff to talk about over the proposition where the defendant
consented to make a movie in particular if the screenwriter, actors and others consent
to it. For the said reason, both the parties went into an agreement on 25 January 2011
posting down the terms of the agreement. Likewise, no such date of release of the
movie was chosen as the release of the movie relies upon the number of outer
certainties outside the control of the producer. Notwithstanding it, it was chosen that
royalty will be paid to the plaintiff, only if the movie is released having his play as the
content. The copy of the agreement is attached herewith and marked as Annexure A.
4. That it is true as stated in paragraph 5 of the plaint that roughly after six months from
the date of the above said agreement, the defendant composed an email to the plaintiff
referencing that the movie couldn't be made out of the play, taking into account that
the play is short and film made out of this play would not be a hit and in this manner
the play to make the movie is disposed of and thusly no thought will be paid to the
plaintiff. The copy of the said email is attached with the plaint and marked as
Annexure B.
5. That it is true that on 02 August 2012, a movie by the title 'Two States' was released
by the defendant anyway the topic of the movie was altogether different from the play
composed by the plaintiff and the thought behind the movie was something previously
utilized numerous time in different movies of different types. The copy of the poster
of the said movie is attached herein and marked as Annexure C.
6. That it is totally off-base to contend that content of the movie is pure adoption of play
written by the plaintiff in light of the fact that in the wake of talking about the said
content with number of directors and actors we came to a conclusion that it was just
not possible to make movie of out it, as it was only suitable for short plays and
dramas.
7. That what is stated in paragraph 8 is totally off-base as the defendant is a notable
personality of the industry who has since years taken works of local artists to global
audience and on the grounds it was insignificant to make movie from the content, the
 defendant denied to use his work. Further, it is an insignificant claim that the
defendant wanted to escape his agreement’s obligations because he in his budget sheet
prepared for the production of movie already allocated Rs. 10,00,000 for the script
provided by the plaintiff.
8. That the movie is made on completely new subject content of which is composed by
one of the production company of which the defendant is proprietor and therefore no
permission of plaintiff is required for the making of the film. The script written used
in the movie is herein attached and marked as Annexure D.
9. That the defendant contend that this plaint has been filed with malicious intention and
to defame the defendant as the movie is a blockbuster from the very first day of its
release and making huge profits.
10. That what is stated in paragraph 10 of the plaint is undisputed.
11. That what is stated in paragraph 11 of the plaint is undisputed.
12. That what is stated in paragraph 12 of the plaint is undisputed.
13. That what is stated in paragraph 13 of the plaint is undisputed.
14. The defendant therefore prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the
suit with costs and :
(A) That the suit shall be dismissed at first instance as there is no cause of action.
(B) That the plaintiff shall be fined heavily for filing vexatious cases and wasting the
time of the learned court.
(C) That the plaintiff be ordered to pay Rs. 7,00,000/- as compensation for mental
harassment
(D) That the prayer of plaintiff for giving permanent injunction shall be quashed as
the balance of convenience is in defendant’s favour.

Defendant’s Advocate Defendant

 VERIFICATION

I Mr. Shubham Singh, 40 s/o Mr. Kunal Singh, C/4320Palash enclave Apartments, Opp. Royal Palace
Udaipur-462016, do solemnly declare that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 9 are true and correct to
the best of my knowledge and content in remaining paragraphs are based on the belief and
information believe it to be true and correct.

Solemnly Declare
SHUBHAM SINGH
At Udaipur
On 10th August of 2019 Defendant
 AFFIDAVIT
BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT OF UDAIPUR AT UDAIPUR

Suit No. 4320 of 2019

IN THE MATTER OF

Mr. Ram Prasad ........……………………………………………………..........Plaintiff

Versus

Mr. Shubham Singh………………………………………………………………Defendant

I Mr. Shubham Singh, 40 s/o Mr. Kunal Singh, C/4320Palash enclave Apartments, Opp,
Royal Palace. Udaipur do solemnly declare that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 9 are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and content in remaining paragraphs are based on the
belief and information believe it to be true and correct.

Solemnly Declare
SHUBHAM SINGH
At Udaipur
On 10th August of 2019 Defendant