1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 876 OF 2008 Faisal Tahir Hussain Khan .......Appellant Verus M/s.Viacom 18 Media P.Ltd and 5 Ors. ........Respondents ====== Mr.M.S.Menon with Mr.Y.S.Menon, adv. for appellant. Mr.Virendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Counsel with Mr.Venkatesh Dhond, Ms.Madhu Godadia, Ms.Preeti Mohatani i/by. Naik Naik & Co., adv.for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr.Ravi Kadam, Senior Counsel i/by. Naik Naik & Co., adv.for respondent no.3. Coram: Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Dated : 28 th August, 2008. P.C. : 1. The appellant filed the instant suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 29th July, 2008 entered into with respondent no.1. The agreement concerns his participation in the Reality Show programme titled as 'Big Boss/Big Brother Series-2'. This programme is produced and broadcast by respondent no.1. The appellant was one of the several persons selected for participation in the programme. Under the agreement, the appellant was to daily interact with a group of people as chosen and finalised by respondent no.1 for 2 approximately 86 days for all the 24 hrs while living in a totally secluded house, completely, cut-off from the outside world. The participation of the persons in the group and their actions are to be filmed and recorded which would be telecast as a television serial. After the execution of the agreement and after some of the photosession for the profile of the appellant, he was informed over telephone by one of the unit members that he will not be a part of the group of persons to participate in the show. Therefore, he filed the instant suit for specific performance of the agreement. 2. In the suit, he took out a Notice of Motion for an interim injunction to restrain respondents no.1 and 2 and two other respondents from telecasting the reality show on 17th August, 2008 or any other day thereafter. An application for ad-interim reliefs was moved by him on 14th August, 2008 which came to be rejected by the impuged order. The main ground on which the application was rejected is that the agreement involves rendering of personal services. Such an agreement is not capable of specific performance in view of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Mr.Menon, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the, agreement entered into between the parties is a complete agreement whereunder the appellant is not expected to give any performance but is to be just a part of the group, the activities of which would be filmed and telecast by the respondents. 3 3. Under Section 14(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act, a contract which is dependent upon on the personal qualifications or volition of the parties, is not capable of specific performance. In the instant case, it is prima-facie obvious that the conduct, actions, performance of the appellant is to be continuously viewed and filmed. Therefore, there is no doubt that the agreement is dependent upon personal qualifications and volition of the parties. It has been argued on behalf of the respondents that if the respondents were to bring in a similar action against the appellants, the same would definitely be defeated by Section 14(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. There cannot be separate yardstick for consideration of claim for specific performance filed by the appellant. The learned Judge has rightly held that the agreement between the parties being in the nature of providing personal services, there cannot be any specific performance of the same. 4. However, there is one error in the order passed by the learned Judge. He ought not to have disposed off the Notice of Motion at the stage of ad-interim reliefs. There is no absolute bar from disposing off the Notice of Motion at the ad- interim stage as the court can refuse leave to register the Notice of Motion. However, as a matter of prudence he ought to have only rejected the application for ad-interim reliefs and given a returnable date on the Notice of Motion. Therefore, this part of the order is required to be corrected. The order dated 14th August, 2009 will be treated as only an ad-interim order on the Notice of Motion 4 taken out by the appellant. The Notice of Motion is made returnable on 15th September, 2009. The appellant may take further suitable steps for prosecution of the Notice of Motion. The impugned order is confirmed subject to above modification. 5. Mr.Tulzapurkar, the learned Senior counsel on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2 waives the service of Notice of Motion. Mr.Kadam, the learned Senior Counsel waives service of Notice of Motion on behalf of respondent no.3. Mr.Menon, makes a statement that the appellant does not press the Notice of Motion against respondents no.4, 5 and 6. Therefore, the Notice of Motion need not be served on them. The affidavits-in-reply, if any, be filed on/or before 7th September, 2008. Affidavits-in-rejoinder, if any, to be filed and a copy furnished to the contesting respondents on/or before 10th September, 2008. The Bombay City Civil Court to take up the Notice of Motion for hearing on 15th September, 2008 and dispose off the same on/or before 19th September, 2008. [Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J] 5