IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE K S MUDAGAL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.7883/2019 (CPC) BETWEEN:
1. Sri Amith.O.Poojari Aged about 42 years Proprietor M/s.Khushi Kanasu Creations No.9/9, 59th Cross Near Bashyam Circle 5th Block, Rajajinagar Bengaluru-10.
2. Sri Ravitheja Son of Lakshmana Gowda Director, Aged about 40 years.
3. Smt.Dakshayini Wife of Ravitheja Aged about 38 years. (Note: The name of wife of Ravitheja is Nisha and not Dakshayini. This was brought to notice of trial court and memo was also filed in that regard.
Vakalath is filed in the name of Smt.Nisha Ravi wife of Ravitheja in the lower court as defendant No.2.
Accordingly before this Hon’ble High Court also Smt.Nisha Ravi is filing vakalath in her name as wife of Ravitheja (Appellant no.2) Appellant No.2 and 3 are Residing at 38/3, 2nd Floor Mylaralingeshwara Nilaya 13th Cross, 4th Block Nandini Layout, Bengaluru-09. .. Appellants (By Sri T Prakash, Advocate) AND 1. Sri C M Muneendra Aged about 41 years Son of late Munishamappa Proprietor, M/s.Preethi Combines, No.2024, `C’ Block, 2nd Main, 21st Cross Sahakaranagar, Bengaluru-92.
2. Smt.Munirathnamma Aged about 36 years Wife of C M Muneendra.
Respondent No.1 and 2 are Residing at No.2051, Kodigehalli Circle, ‘C’ Block, Sahakaranagara Bengaluru – 92.
3. The Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce, No.28, 1st Main Road Crescent Road, Near Shivananda Circle, High Ground Bangalore-01. .. Respondents (By Sri Mohan S, Advocate for R1 & R2, Sri H S Dhanaraja, Advocate for R3) This MFA is filed under Order 43 Rule (1)(r) of CPC against the order dated 4.9.2019 passed on IA Nos.1 to 3 in OS No.3167/2019 on the file of the XX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-32), Bengaluru City, dismissing the IA No.III filed under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC and disposing IA No.I & II filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC.
This MFA coming on for admission this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT “Whether the impugned order of the Trial Court in granting temporary injunction against release of movie Saaguta Doora Doora, suffers perversity and/or arbitrariness?” is the question involved in this case.
2. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed O.S.No.3167/2019 against the appellants and respondent No.3 herein before the XX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-32), Bengaluru City, seeking declaration that completion of the shooting of the film “Sagutha Doora Doora” by Defendant Nos.1 & 3 is illegal and unjust and for permanent injunction against release of the said film or in any name with lead actors, Mahesh and Apeksha on Amazon Prime Video Film Series by the defendants.
3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to henceforth as per their rankings before the Trial Court.
4. Plaintiff No.1 runs film production under the name and style “Preethi Combines”. Defendant No.3 is running film production under the name and style “M/s.Khushi Kanasu Creations”. There is no dispute that anybody who wants to produce film in Karnataka has to enroll himself as member with defendant No.4 - Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce, which is governed by its own Memorandum and Articles of Association.
5. Plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.3 are the members of defendant No.4. Plaintiff No.1 got registered with defendant No.4 regarding the production of movie titled “Kaanada Kadalige” with Mahesh and Apeksha as lead star cast and defendant No.1 as the Director of the said movie. However, upto 2019, the said movie was not produced.
6. Defendant No.3 got registered with defendant No.4 on 31.7.2018 for production of movie titled “Sagutha Doora Doora” with lead star cast, Mahesh and Apeksha and defendant No.1 as the Director. He applied to the Central Board of Film Certification (for short `Board’), Government of India, for screening of the said movie. The said Board after following the procedure issued a certificate on 23.7.2019 permitting him to release the film.
7. Plaintiffs filed OS No.3167/2019 claiming that under the Directorship of defendant No.1, they had completed a substantial portion of film “Kaanada Kadalige” and in that regard, Rs.30 lakhs was paid from the account of plaintiff No.2 to defendant No.2, the wife of defendant No.1 and further shooting was stopped due to financial difficulty. They further claimed that to cheat them, defendant Nos.1 to 3 in collusion with each other, took up the further shooting of the half done movie, completed that and are about to release the same renaming that as “Sagutha Doora Doora”. They claimed that though they filed a complaint before defendant No.4, in that regard, defendant No.4 did not take any action. They also claimed that the shooting of the film “Sagutha Doora Doora” is only hijacking of the movie “Kaanada Kadalige’, which is illegal. Hence, sought injunction against the release of the movie.
8. The Trial Court initially granted an exparte temporary injunction against the defendants with regard to release of the movie. On defendants appearing in the matter, they filed written statement and objections to I.A.Nos.I and II denying the allegations that they have stolen the reels of the movie “Kaanada Kadalige” and continued the same renaming that as “Sagutha Doora Doora”. They further contended that the Civil Court is barred from entertaining the suit as the parties have to resolve the dispute before the 4th defendant as per the Articles of Association of defendant No.4.
9. The Trial Court after hearing both sides by the impugned order allowed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 and rejected I.A.No.3 and granted the temporary injunction holding that the story of “Saagutha Doora Doora” is nothing but another name given to the movie titled “Kaanada Kadalige” produced by plaintiff No.1 and the contentions of defendants No.1 to 3 that their movie is totally different is unacceptable.
10. Sri T Prakash, learned counsel for the appellants prays to set aside the impugned order on the following grounds:
i) That the plaintiffs did not make out any prima facie case;
ii) There was delay of three years in shooting the alleged movie of the plaintiffs;
iii) The 1st plaintiff did not exhaust remedy available to him before the 4th defendant. Therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in entertaining the suit and applications.
iv) Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had produced the movie at the cost of Rs.1.5 crores. Therefore, granting temporary injunction has caused irreparable injury to them.
v) The balance of convenience was lying in their favour.
vi) The plaintiffs did not object the certificate issued by the Board. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to challenge the release of movie. Once the certificate is issued, the Court cannot grant injunction against the release of the movie.
11. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma – vs- Sanjay Leela Bhansali1.
12. Sri Mohan, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs seeks to justify the impugned order of the Trial Court on the following grounds:
i) The fact of plaintiffs promoting the movie “Kaanada Kadalige’ is admitted, ii) The materials produced before the Trial Court made out a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs.
iii) Defendant No.4 did not do the needful despite filing a complaint before it. Therefore, defendants were forced to approach the civil Court. There was no bar to approach the Civil Court.
1 AIR 2018 SC 86 13. Sri H S Dhanaraja, Advocate for defendant No.4/ respondent No.3 seeks to challenge the impugned order of the Trial Court on the following grounds:
i) Plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 3 were governed by the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce;
ii) As per Article 38 of Articles of Association, if there is any dispute, the parties have to file a complaint with prescribed fee. The plaintiffs had not done that. Therefore, they were not justified in blaming defendant No.4.
iii) Since the complaint of the plaintiffs was not accompanied with prescribed fee and other required documents/ materials, defendant No.4 was justified in not proceeding with the said complaint.
iv) Article 38(a) of the Articles of Association provides that the members cannot directly approach the Civil Court without exhausting the remedy of arbitration;
14. While considering the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction, the Court is required to consider the following three questions:
1) Prima facie case of the right of the plaintiffs;
2) Prima facie injury to such right of plaintiffs;
3) In whose favour, balance of convenience lies;
15. Now the question is whether plaintiffs had made out prima case of their right for grant of temporary injunction. Their contention is that defendants No.1 and 3 have hijacked the plaintiffs’ half done movie “Kaanada Kadalige’ and proceeded to shoot the remaining part of the same with same star cast and director renaming that as “Saagutha Doora Doora”. Plaintiffs failed to produce any material to show that the theme or script of movie titled ‘Kaanada Kadalige’ and ‘Saagutha Doora Doora’ are one and the same. Plaintiffs even do not produce the script of movie ‘Kaanada Kadalige’ or called upon the defendants to produce any documents to substantiate their case.
16. Merely, because, a producer has employed the stars and director previously employed by another in a movie itself does not lead to conclusion that the movie produced by the earlier producer and subsequent director are one and the same. However, when such basic material was not before it, the Trial Court by the impugned order proceeded to hold that the pleadings of the plaintiffs are specific and genuine and the documents produced by them must be genuine.
17. The Trial Court itself states in its order that both the parties have not produced the clips of their respective films for comparison. Having said so, the Trial Court without any basis holds that prima facie the movie ‘Sagutha Doora Doora’ sought to be released by defendant No.3 and movie of the plaintiffs ‘Kaanada Kadalige’ are one and the same. Thus, the plaintiffs failed to make out prima facie their right. In the absence of prima facie case of right, there was no question of considering the prima facie case of injury or balance of convenience.
18. Even otherwise, admittedly the Board had issued certificate to defendant No.3 to release the movie “Saagutha Doora Doora” that was not challenged by the plaintiffs. The Trial Court itself states that the defendants claimed to have invested Rs.1.5 crores in the movie. In the said circumstances, consideration of irreparable injury or balance of convenience, lies in favour of the defendants.
19. There is no dispute that while issuing certificate, the Board called for objections from the public as per Rule 11 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983. At that time, plaintiffs have not filed any objections. Plaintiffs contended that, if the film is not released, Rs.30 lakhs allegedly invested by them could not be recovered. Section 41(h) & (i) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 reads thus:
“41. Injunction when refused.- An injunction cannot be granted.-
(h) when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding except in case of breach of trust;
(i) when the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been such as to disentitle him to the assistance of the court;”
20. Therefore, if the film is released and plaintiffs are able to show that they had invested Rs.30 lakhs in the movie and defendants No.1 to 3 hijacking that made the movie “Saagutha Doora Doora”, it is open for them to seek damages.
21. Further the fact that plaintiffs have not objected for the issuance of certificate and not approached defendant No.4 with fee prescribed under Article 38 of Memorandum and Articles of Association disentitles them to the assistance of the Court. The Trial Court did not consider all these aspects while considering the grant of injunction. Therefore, the impugned order of the Trial Court is arbitrary, perverse and illegal.
In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.
The impugned order dated 4.9.2019 on I.A.Nos.1 to 3 in OS No.3167/2019 passed by the XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-32), Bengaluru City, is hereby set aside. I.A.Nos.1 and 2 filed by the plaintiffs in the said suit under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC are hereby rejected.
I.A.No.3 filed by defendant No.3 in the said suit under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC is allowed. The order of temporary injunction granted under I.A.Nos.1 and 2 by the Trial Court is hereby vacated.
In view of disposal of appeal, I.A.No.1/2019 is disposed of.
Bkm Sd/- JUDGE