Joint promise enforcement and licence expiry rights were limited to the specific performance actually in normal run.

A joint promise may be enforced by one promisee when the other refuses to join as co-plaintiff, provided the non-joining promisee is impleaded as a defendant and no relief is sought against him; the article notes that this avoids multiple proceedings and keeps all necessary parties before the court. It also states that a contractual proviso allowing a play to continue after licence expiry applied only to the performance actually in normal run during the relevant week, not to additional plays introduced later. The compensation decree was maintained, with the clarification that it was payable to both joint promisors, not one alone.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a suit by one of two joint promisors was maintainable when the other joint promisor was impleaded as a pro forma defendant and no relief was claimed against him; (ii) whether, on expiry of the licence, the defendants were entitled to continue staging other plays besides the one actually in its normal run during the week before expiry; (iii) whether the decree for compensation could stand with the clarification that the plaintiff and the other joint promisor were both entitled to it.

Issue (i): whether a suit by one of two joint promisors was maintainable when the other joint promisor was impleaded as a pro forma defendant and no relief was claimed against him.

Analysis: Section 45 of the Contract Act deals with devolution of the right to claim performance in joint promises, but it does not prohibit one joint promise from suing when the other refuses to join as co-plaintiff. Order 1 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits joinder of persons having a common right to relief, and the proper course where one joint promise will not join is to implead him as a defendant. The object of the rule is to avoid multiple litigation and to ensure that all necessary parties are before the court. The impleaded co-promise being before the court and no relief being claimed against him, the suit was maintainable.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of maintainability and against the appellants.

Issue (ii): whether, on expiry of the licence, the defendants were entitled to continue staging other plays besides the one actually in its normal run during the week before expiry.

Analysis: The proviso in the agreement protected only the drama that was actually being staged in the week preceding the expiry of the one-year term, and only until its normal run was over. The finding was that during the relevant week only Katha Kao was being performed. Once other dramas were introduced and Katha Kao was reduced to one show a week, its normal run in the contractual sense had ended. The contractual benefit could not be extended to other plays staged at the defendants' option after expiry of the licence. On the expiry of the licence, the defendants had no continuing right to use the theatre for other performances.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellants.

Issue (iii): whether the decree for compensation could stand with the clarification that the plaintiff and the other joint promisor were both entitled to it.

Analysis: The decree for compensation was not disturbed on merits. The only correction made was that the compensation awarded to the plaintiff alone had to be treated as payable to both joint promisors, since they were jointly entitled to it. This was a modification of the decree, not a reversal of the substantive relief.

Conclusion: The decree was sustained with the stated modification, in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in substance, and the decree of injunction and liability was maintained, with only a correction regarding the persons entitled to compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where one joint promise refuses to join as co-plaintiff, the other may maintain the action by impleading him as a defendant, and a contractual proviso permitting continuation of a performance after expiry of term extends only to the specific performance actually in normal run and not to additional performances introduced thereafter.

---