Karnataka High Court
Sri Darshan Srinivas vs Siri Productions on 17 July, 2026
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4257 OF 2026 (CPC-)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI DARSHAN SRINIVAS
S/O LATE THOOGUDEEPA SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
NO.217, THOOGU DEEPA NILAYA
F-ROAD, IDEAL HOME TOWNSHIP
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
BENGALURU
KARNATAKA - 560 098.
2. SMT.VIJAYALAKSHMI DARSHAN,
W/O DARSHAN SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
NO.217, THOOGU DEEPA NILAYA
F-ROAD, IDEAL HOME TOWNSHIP
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 098.
Digitally signed ...APPELLANTS
by
GAVRIBIDANUR
SUBRAMANYA (BY SRI.M.S.SHYAM SUNDAR., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.
GUPTA
SREENATH PRATHAM N.,ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. SIRI PRODUCTIONS
(PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN)
REP.BY ITS PROPRIETOR/PRODUCER
SRI. TANUSH S
NO.131, SRI RANGANATHA NILAYA
DASANAPURA, TUMKUR ROAD
BENGALURU -562 162.
-2-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
2. SRI. LAVA V
DIRECTOR
NO.131, SRI RANGANATHA NILAYA
DASANAPURA
TUMKUR ROAD
BENGALURU 562 162.
3. CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION (CBFC),
(UNION OF INDIA)
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICER
SHRI YASHWANT SHEHNAI
KENDRIYA SADAN, 'D' WING
4TH FLOOR, 17TH MAIN
KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560 034.
4. KARNATAKA FILM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (KFCC),
THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT
SRI. JAYAPRADHA,
NO.28, 1ST MAIN ROAD
CRESCENT ROAD, HIGH GROUNDS
BENGALURU 560 001.
5. META PLATFORMS, INC. (FACEBOOK),
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY/GRIEVANCE
OFFICER, INDIA OFFICE 15TH FLOOR
WORLD TRADE CENTER
BRIGADE GATEWAY
MALLESHWARAM WEST
BENGALURU - 560 055.
6. X CORP (FORMERLY TWITTER),
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY/GRIEVANCE
OFFICER
INDIA OFFICE, 9TH FLOOR
WORLD TRADE CENTER
BRIGADE GATEWAY
MALLESHWARAM WEST
BENGALURU - 560 055.
-3-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
7. GOOGLE LLC (YOUTUBE),
THROUGH ITS RESIDENT GRIEVANCE OFFICER
FOR YOUTUBE, SURAJ RAO
UNIT NO.26, THE EXECUTIVE CENTRE
LEVEL 8, DLF CENTRE, SANSAD MARG
CONNAUGHT PLACE
NEW DELHI - 110 001
8. NEW INDIAN EXPRESS,
REGISTERED CORPORATE OFFICE
EXPRESS GARDEN, 29, 2ND MAIN ROAD
AMBATTUR INDUSTRIAL AREA
CHENNAI - 600 058
BENGALURU
OFFICE NO.1, EXPRESS BUILDING
QUEENS ROAD
BENGALURU 560 001
REP. BY ITS EDITOR.
9. FILMIBEAT (GREYNIUM INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.),
VRR LEGACY NO.2, 1ST MAIN
4TH FLOOR, 1ST BLOCK
KORAMANGALA
JAKKASANDRA EXTENSION
BENGALURU - 560 034.
10. TV9 KANNADA,
TV9 KARNATAKA PVT LTD
13/1 RHENIUS STREET
RICHMOND TOWN
BENGALURU 560 025
11. ZEE KANNADA NEWS,
5TH FLOOR, THE LAND MARK BUIDLING
NEXT TO TRINITY METRO STATION
MG ROAD, YELLAPPA CHETTY LAYOUT
BENGALURU 560 042
-4-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
12. SRI. ASHOK KUMAR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VIVEK SUBBA REDDY .SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI
DHANANJAY C.P., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 43 RULE 1(R) OF CPC, AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED 02.06.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NO. I IN
OS.NO. 2151/2026 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-16),
DISMISSING THE I.A.NO. 1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE
1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 94(d) AND SECTION 151 OF
CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs
challenging the order dated 2.6.2026 passed on I.A. No.1
in O.S. No.2151/2026 by the XVII Addl. City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are on caveat, who are
defendant Nos.1 and 2 before the trial Court. Since the
application in question is concerned with respondent no. 1
and 2, the others are not notified.
-5-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
3. Parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as
per their ranking before the trial Court, for the sake of
brevity.
4. Plaintiffs filed the suit against defendants for
Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 and
2, their representatives from in any manner producing,
filming, editing, promoting, marketing, releasing,
distributing, exhibiting, telecasting, streaming, selling,
licensing, leasing or dealing with the movie titled “BOSS”.
Alongwith with the plaint, an application came to be filed
by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC in
I.A. No.1/2026 for grant of an ad-interim order of
Temporary Injunction against defendant Nos.1 and 2.
5. Initially, before issuance of notice, the trial Court
by an order dated 27.3.2026 passed an interim order on
I.A. No.1/2026 against defendant Nos.1 and 2, Producer
and Director of the movie. Based on the said order,
respondents were notified and an affidavit of compliance is
-6-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
filed with regard to communicating the order to the
defendants.
6. Before the notices were served, defendant Nos.1
and 2 moved an application for advancement by filing the
written statement and adopting the same as statement of
objections to the application – I.A. No.1 and sought to
dispose of the application on merits. The matter was
taken up and the application under Order – XXXIX Rules 1
& 2 of CPC came to be dismissed by the learned trial Judge
by the impugned order dated 2.6.2026. It is this order of
dismissal of IA.No.1 which is called in question by the
plaintiffs in this appeal.
7. I have heard learned senior counsel – Sri M.S.
Shyam Sundar appearing on behalf of learned counsel –
Sri Pratham .N for appellants/plaintiffs as well as learned
senior counsel – Sri Vivek Subba Reddy on behalf of
learned counsel – Sri Dhananjay C.P. for respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
-7-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
8. It is the contention of learned senior counsel – Sri
M.S. Shyam Sundar appearing on behalf of learned
counsel – Sri Pratham N for appellants/plaintiffs that
plaintiff no. 1 is one of the most celebrated and
commercially successful actor and film producer in the
South Indian film industry, specifically the Kannada film
industry (Sandalwood). Over a career spanning more than
two decades, he has delivered a string of blockbuster
Kannada films, earning fans across the State of Karnataka
and beyond. It is also contended by learned senior
counsel that plaintiff no. 1 is universally known, addressed
and identified by his distinctive fans as “challenging star
Darshan”, “BOSS”, and “D-BOSS”. The last of which has
become so uniquely and exclusively identified with him
that the general public, the media, the Karnataka film
industry, and the Courts themselves use it interchangeably
with his name. The plaintiff No.2, who is the appellant
No.2 herein is the wife of appellant No.1.
-8-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
8.1 It is further contended that the plaintiff No.1 has
over the span of several years of hard work and dedication
in the film industry identified himself to be a superstar and
his fans conferred upon him the title “BOSS” as a mark of
reverence and the same has been consistently used in
media publications, social media, fan clubs, public
discourse etc. It is further contended that this distinctive
persona and trade identity is a valuable property right as
recognized by Courts across India.
8.2 It is also contended that on 09.06.2024, Crime
No.250/2024 was registered by the Kamakshipalya Police
Station, Bengaluru against the plaintiff No.1 and others for
the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the
IPC, in connection with the alleged murder of one Sri
Renukaswamy, a fan of plaintiff No.1.
8.3 It is further contended that the prosecution has
set in motion the FIR and pursuant to the investigation, a
charge sheet is filed by alleging that Sri Renukaswamy had
-9-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
allegedly sent obscene, offensive and objectionable
messages to plaintiff no. 2 and upon the instigation of
plaintiff no. 1, the said Renukaswamy was abducted,
assaulted and killed and that his body was disposed of
near a drainage in the area of Kamakshipalya, Bengaluru.
It is further case of the prosecution that Sri Renukaswamy
personally pleaded for his life stating words to the effect
that he had a pregnant wife and aged parents at home,
before he was killed.
8.4 It is further contended that following the
investigation based on the FIR, charge sheet was filed and
the case has been now registered in SC No.1319/ 2024
before the LVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
and the trial is currently at a nascent stage, with day to
day hearing ongoing. It is further case of plaintiffs that
plaintiff no. 1 is an under-trial prisoner. Since he has not
been convicted yet and neither he has accepted his guilt,
there is a presumption of innocence and the fundamental
– 10 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677 MFA No. 4257 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010403232026 right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as
recognised in a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court operatives fully in his favour.
8.5 It is also contended by the learned counsel that
from the very date of registration of a crime for the
aforementioned offences against the plaintiff No.1 and
others, the print media, television channels and
social/digital media platforms have been engaged in what
is described by the Courts as :
“a calculated media-driven adjudication,
fostering a parallel narrative and engendering
prejudicial pre-trial publicity” – disseminating
speculative narratives, selectively leaked charge
sheet, material, and unverified allegations, thereby
engineering public perception and impairing the
plaintiffs right to a fair trial”
8.6 This being the facts and circumstances of the
case, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 directed and produced
the Kannada feature film titled “BOSS” between
– 11 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
November-2024 and September-2025. The said movie is
produced under the banner of Respondent No.1 – Siri
Productions by Sri Tanush .S, who plays the lead role and
directed by Respondent No.2 – Sri Lava V, which is totally
based on the alleged incident involving the plaintiff Nos.1
and 2, which is subjudice in S.C. No.1319/2024 before the
LVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
8.7 It is the contention of learned senior counsel that
the teaser of the film bore in its very opening frame, the
explicit declaration “inspired by true events”. Within
hours of its release, the teaser was viewed by millions of
persons and created an immediate and massive public
association between the film and the ongoing criminal
trial.
8.8 Learned senior counsel contends that a plain
viewing of the teaser – as acknowledged even in
paragraph-10 of the impugned order of the trial Court
reveals, minimum of 13 striking, deliberate and
– 12 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
unmistakable factual parallels to the prosecution’s case in
S.C No.1319/2024, as tabulated below:
Sl.No. Element in Film “BOSS” Corresponding Fact in
(Teaser/Promotions/CBFC Sub-Judice Matter
Plot Summary) (C.C.No.1319/2024/
Crime No.0250/2024)
1. Title of the film: “BOSS” Appellant No.1 is publicly,
universally and exclusively
known as “D Boss” /
“Challenging Star Darshan”. He
has acted in a blockbuster
Kannada film itself. titled
“Boss”. The moniker is his
commercial identity.
2. Protagonist/ lead Appellant No.1’s fans and the
character repeatedly general public refer to him
referred to as “Boss” by exclusively as “D Boss” or
fans throughout the film “Boss” not as a generic title but
as a unique identifier specific to
him.
3. Celebrity figure accused The deceased, Renukaswamy,
of being involved in the was a fan of Appellant No.1,
killing of a fan/follower who allegedly sent
who sent obscene objectionable and obscene
messages and calls to messages to Appellant No.2
the protagonist’s (Vijayalakshmi Darshan), the
wife/girlfriend wife of Appellant No.1. This is
the precise foundation of Crime
No. 0250/2024.
– 13 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
4. Victim heard pleading in Verbatim mirror of the victim
the audio: "Don't kill me, Renukaswamy's alleged last
I have a pregnant wife at words / dying declaration as
home and aged parents" specifically set out in the FIR
and the charge sheet filed in
Crime No. 0250/2024. No
coincidence can account for this
exact replication.
5. The body of the victim is The body of Renukaswamy
shown discovered next to was, as per the prosecution
a drainage pipeline. case in Crime No.0250/2024,
discovered near a drainage in
Kamakshi Palya, Bengaluru.
The replication is precise.
6. Celebrity protagonist is Appellant No.1 was arrested by
shown being arrested Kamakshipalya Police in June
and subjected to police 2024 and has been in custody
investigation since. He is currently facing
day-to-day trial in C.C.
No.1319/2024 before the LVI
Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
7. Entire narrative, story, Crime No.0250/2024 and the
and settings are trial in C.C. No.1319/2024 are
Bengaluru-centric entirely situated in Bengaluru.
The victim was found in
Bengaluru; the accused resides
in Bengaluru.
8. The protagonist’s Appellant No.2’s full legal name
wife/girlfriend is named is Vijayalakshmi Darshan –
"Lakshmi" is the direct,
- 14 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
"Lakshmi" unmistakable reference to
Appellant No.2.
9. Explicit opening This is a direct and deliberate
disclaimer in the very link to the real-life events
first frame of the teaser: forming the subject matter of
"Inspired by "True the sub-judice criminal trial CC
Events” No.1319/2024. The disclaimer
operates as a confession of the
film’s evidentiary foundation.
10. Film carries two Reflects the real-life
prominent female leads circumstances involving
in the storyline Appellant No.2 (wife) and the
women to whom obsence
messages were sent- mirroring
the factual matrix of the charge
sheet.
11. CBFC plot summary This is a calculated
describes protagonist as misrepresentation by
a “famous cricket player” Respondents No.1 & 2 to
yet the teaser and all circumvent Section 5B of the
promotional material cinematograph Act, 1952. The
show a celebrity CBFC certified based on a false
entertainer and no plot summary. The actual
cricket connection is teaser bears no cricket content
visible in the teaser whatsoever.
12. Victim in the film is Real victim: Sri. Renukaswamy
named “Shiva Swami” the name is superficially altered
to evade identification while
retaining the critical “Swami”
suffix maintaining the
unmistakable resonance.
- 15 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
13. The crime scene in the The actual crime scene:
film is referred to as Kamakshi Palya, Bengaluru the
“Palya” geographic reference is
retained verbatim with only the
qualifier “Kamakshi” dropped.
8.9 Learned senior counsel further contends that the
cumulative effect of these 13 parallels taken together with
the “inspired by true events” opening declaration, is that
the film constitutes a dramatic, cinematic re-enactment of
the prosecution’s version of the Criminal Case in
S.C.No.1319/2024, presented to mass audiences as based
on truth, while the trial itself is still ongoing and no verdict
has been rendered.
8.10 It is also the contention of learned senior
counsel that after release of the teaser, respondent no. 2
(the Director, Sri Lava .V), who also claims to be a
practicing advocate, conducted a press conference in
which he made public admissions confirming that the film
draws from real events involving the appellants.
– 16 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
8.11 In view of such events, the plaintiffs are
constrained to file the suit seeking the following reliefs:
“a) Granting perpetual prohibitor injunction
restraining the Defendant No.1 and Defendant
No.2, its producers, directors, Lava V, lead actor
Tanush S, their representatives, associates,
servants, agents, employees, men or anyone
claiming through or under them, from in any
manner producing, filming, editing, promoting,
marketing, releasing, distributing, exhibiting,
telecasting, streaming, selling, licensing, leasing,
or dealing with the movie titled “BOSS” (or any
other movie/film/web-series/ content by
whatever name called) based on or depicts the
life of the Plaintiffs, the incidents alleged in the
criminal case pending in S.C.No.1319 of 2024
before the LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru, or any elements directly or
indirectly referring to or associating with the
Plaintiffs’ private life, family, reputation, the sub-
judice criminal proceedings or any other similar
incidents, and from using the Plaintiffs’ name,
image, likeness, personality rights, or any
promotional material (posters, teasers, trailers,
press meets, interviews, etc.) in any medium
whatsoever.
– 17 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
b) Declare that the Certificate
No.DIL/7/33/2026-BAN dated 17.03.2026 issued
by Defendant No.3 (Central Board of Film
Certification) in favour of the movie “BOSS” is
illegal, arbitrary, malafide, null and void ab-initio
and contrary to the provisions of Section 5B of
the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the
fundamental rights of the Plaintiffs under Article
21 of the Constitution of India.
c) Cancelling/revoking of the Certificate
No.DIL/7/33/2026-BAN dated 17.03.2026 and
directing Defendant No.3 (CBFC) to forthwith
withdraw, cancel and recall the said certificate
and not to permit any public exhibition, release,
distribution, streaming or exhibition of the movie
“Boss” in any form whatsoever.
d. Directing Defendant No.3 (Central Board of
Film Certification) to forthwith cease and desist
from examining, processing or granting any
further certification (or re-certification) to the
movie titled “Boss” or any such movie/content
as described in prayer (a) above and to refuse
certification in exercise of powers. under Section
5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 read with
the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024.
– 18 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
e. Granting perpetual prohibitory injunction
restraining the Defendants No.5 to 7 (Facebook,
Instagram, Twitter/X, YouTube and their
affiliates) from uploading, hosting, streaming,
promoting, sharing, or in any manner allowing
circulation of the teaser, trailer, press meet
videos, posters, promotional interviews, or any
other material related to the said movie “BOSS”
that depicts or refers to the Plaintiffs’ life or the
sub-judice criminal case, and directing them to
immediately remove / block all such existing
content from their platforms.
f. Grant perpetual prohibitory injunction
restraining the Defendant No.8 to 11 herein or
anybody claiming under him/them from
broadcasting/ telecasting/ transmitting/
publishing/distributing/ sharing any material in
permanent/transient/audio format in any print
media/newspaper/television channels/local cable
operated channels/internet/ website, uploading,
hosting, streaming, promoting, sharing, or in
any manner allowing circulation of the teaser,
trailer, press meet videos, posters, promotional
interviews, or any other material related to the
said movie “BOSS” that depicts or refers to the
Plaintiffs’ life or the sub-judice criminal case, and
– 19 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
directing them to immediately remove / block all
such existing content from their platforms.
g. Granting perpetual prohibitory injunction
against the unknown Defendants (impleaded as
Defendant No.12 Ashok Kumar) including but
not limited to cinema halls, multiplexes,
theatres, exhibitors, distributors, owners,
managers, agents, servants, employees or any
person(s) claiming through or under them, from
in any manner exhibiting, screening, showing or
permitting the public exhibition of the movie
titled “BOSS” in any theatre, cinema hall,
multiplex or public place whatsoever within the
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court or throughout
the territory of India, pending final adjudication
or until further orders. From releasing,
publishing, distributing, telecasting, streaming,
selling, licensing, leasing, exhibiting, or dealing
with the movie “BOSS” or its rights in any
manner or in any medium whatsoever on behalf
of or for the benefit of Defendant No.1 or any
other person.
h. Direct the Defendant No.1 and Defendant
No.2 to pay to the Plaintiffs for violating the
Plaintiffs right to privacy and personal liberty,
infringement of his personality rights, mental
– 20 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
agony, trauma, distress caused to the Plaintiffs
and their family members due to the
unauthorized and sensational portrayal in
promotional material of their movie “Boss”
i. Award cost of the suit and all incidental costs
to the Plaintiffs
j. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.”
8.12 Alongwith the plaint, an application is filed
under Order – XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking the
following reliefs:
“That for the reasons sworn in the
accompanying affidavit, the plaintiffs were in most
respectfully prays before this Hon’ble Court to
grant an order of Ex-parte ad-interim temporary
injunction directing the Defendant No.1 and
Defendant No.2, its producers, directors, the,
there representatives, associates, servants,
agents, employees, men or anyone claiming
through or under them, from in any manner
producing, filming, editing, promoting, marketing,
releasing, distributing, exhibiting, telecasting,
streaming, selling, licensing, leasing, or dealing
– 21 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
with the movie titled “BOSS” (or any other movie
/film/web-series / content by whatever name
called) based on or depicts the life of the
Plaintiffs, the incidents alleged in the criminal case
pending in C.C. No.1319 of 2024 before the LVI
Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, or
any elements directly or indirectly referring to or
associating with the Plaintiffs’ private life, family,
reputation, the sub-judice criminal proceedings or
any other similar incidents, and from using the
Plaintiffs’ name, image, likeness, Personality
rights, or any promotional material (posters,
teaser trailers, press meets, interviews, etc.) in
any medium including theatres and/or
Intermediary Streaming Platforms (OTT)
whatsoever appointing a receiver for enforcement
of the present order interest of Justice and
Equity.”
8.13 The trial Court initially had granted an ad-
interim order of temporary injunction, but later on
appearance of defendant No.1 & 2 by the impugned order
dated 2.6.2026 dismissed the said application. Being
aggrieved, the appellants/ plaintiffs are before this Court
in the present appeal.
– 22 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
9. Learned senior counsel appearing for
appellants/plaintiffs vehemently contends that the
impugned order passed by the learned trial judge is
perverse, illegal, arbitrary and the same is liable to be set
aside for the reason that the trial Court held that the suit
rested on “wild guessing/imaginations”, which is exfacie
perverse.
9.1 Learned counsel for appellants/plaintiffs contends
that the present case is based on identical facts. The film
“BOSS’, which bears an explicit name “Inspired by True
Events’ declaration, uses the moniker “BOSS” which is
synonymous with the plaintiff no. 1 and contains thirteen
factual parallels to the ongoing trial. Therefore, learned
counsel contends that the ratio in the Black Friday case
squarely applies and requires the trial Court to grant the
injunction.
9.2 It is further contended that a colourable device
designed to circumvent legal restrictions cannot be
– 23 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
validated by superficial changes. Calling a protagonist a
‘cricketer’ on paper while retaining 13 precise factual
parallels to the prosecution’s case cannot immunise the
film. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants
contends that it is the overall impression and the real
events foundation that determines whether a trial relates
to pending sub-judice proceedings. The trial Court has
failed to apply this principle to unravel the truth. Having
not done so, it amounts to perversity.
9.3 It is also contended by the learned senior counsel
that the trial Court has committed a grave constitutional
error by treating the defendants’ right to cinematic
expression under Article 19(1)(a) as effectively
superseding the plaintiffs’ non-derograble right to a fair
trial and right to privacy under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
9.4 Learned senior counsel contends that the film
“BOSS” is based on the alleged incidents of prosecution
– 24 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
case against plaintiff No.1 in S.C. No.1319/2024. There is
a substantial high risk and prejudice that is caused to the
plaintiffs and other accused in the administration of justice
in view of ongoing criminal trial in S.C. No.1319/2024.
9.5 Learned Senior counsel further contends that a
full-length feature film with an “Inspired by True Events”
declaration is infinitely more prejudicial than a media
report. As the film dramatises the prosecution case, it is
manifestly contrary to the binding ratio laid down by the
several judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
9.6 Learned senior counsel further contends that
this dramatization of cinematic re-enactment in the film,
“BOSS” seriously prejudices the case of the plaintiffs in the
criminal trial and therefore it is in violation of the
constitutional provisions to have a fair trial to the plaintiffs
without there being any bias or influence and tarnishing
the image of plaintiff No.1.
– 25 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026CNR: KAHC010403232026
9.7 Learned senior counsel further contends that if
television broadcasts amount to ‘media-driven
adjudication’ warranting mandatory regulatory action, the
production and release of a commercially distributed
feature film dramatising the prosecution’s case, is
contemptuous of the pending criminal proceedings.
9.8 Learned senior counsel also contends that the
finding of the trial Court that when the defendant No.3 –
Central Board of Film Certification (‘CBFC’ for short), a
statutory authority issued a certificate for release of the
movie in question, prima facie it can be construed that the
authority has taken into account all the guidelines and that
the Court cannot sit as a Super Censor Board, is erroneous
and lacks proper reasoning.
9.9 Learned senior counsel further contends that the
question before the Court was not one of censorship, but
one of whether the exhibition of the film would amount to
contempt of Court and interference with the administration
– 26 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026CNR: KAHC010403232026
of justice, a matter which is exclusively within the domain
of the Courts, but not the CBFC.
9.10 It is also the contention of learned senior
counsel that a film which is explicitly declared as “inspired
by true events”, replicating the prosecution’s version in an
ongoing murder trial, manifestly falls within the prohibition
of Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The CBFC’s
failure to apply this provision renders the certificate void
ab initio, which has been conveniently ignored by the
learned trial judge, thereby causing grave miscarriage of
justice.
9.11 Learned senior counsel further contends that
the film “BOSS” constitutes a direct violation of plaintiff
No.1’s right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India. The trial Court has not taken into consideration
the constitutional right of privacy provided to the plaintiffs
and has erroneously come to a conclusion that the film
– 27 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026CNR: KAHC010403232026
titled “Boss” as a generic term is used widely in the film
industry and it cannot be held as a monopoly.
9.12 Learned senior counsel further contends that
producing a commercially distributed feature film “BOSS”
without the consent of the plaintiffs, is violation of
plaintiffs’ privacy and personal autonomy.
9.13 It is further contended by learned Senior
Counsel that the trial Court has committed perversity in
coming to a conclusion that “in the event, the plaintiffs
able to establish at trial, that the movie in question is
based on plaintiff No.1 and the same would cause serious
injury to the reputation of the plaintiffs, they can be
suitably compensated”.
9.14 It is also contended by the learned senior
counsel that on the contrary, plaintiff no. 1 will
compensate for the cost of the movie/film if an interim
order of injunction is granted and the film is not released
till the trial is concluded, as it would prejudice not only the
– 28 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
mind of the Court before which the criminal matter is
pending, but also to the witnesses of the prosecution to
paint a wrong image of the plaintiff No.1 as an offender.
9.15 Learned senior counsel further contends that
the very same Court which has now passed the impugned
order by dismissing the application for Temporary
Injunction, earlier found that the plaintiffs have made out
a valid prima facie case and had granted an ad interim
order of temporary injunction. Thus, the trial Court has
taken a ‘U’ turn and found that no prima-facie case is
made out and dismissed the application and the same is
due to non-application of mind, which calls for interference
in this appeal.
9.16 Learned senior counsel further contends that
several judgments placed before the trial Court were not
properly appreciated and infact, the trial Court ought to
have appreciated the said judgments and granted the
interim order in favour of the plaintiff, which has not been
– 29 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
done. Thereby, the trial Court has committed a serious
error, illegality and perversity and not applied its mind in
the proper prospective while passing the impugned order.
9.17 On these grounds, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs seeks to set aside
the impugned order and grant the order of Temporary
Injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.
9.18 In support of his contentions, learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs has relied
upon the following judgments:
i) Judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of
Mushtaq Moosa Tarani Vs. Govt.of India and Ors.
(2005 SCC OnLine Bom 385)
ii) Judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case
of Sonakka Gopalagowda Shathaveri & Ors. vs.
U.R.Anathamurthy and others {1987 SCC OnLine
Kar 367}
iii) Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd and others Vs.
Coca Cola and others {(1995) 5 SCC 545}
– 30 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
iv) Judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of
Naveen Jindal v.M/s Zee Media Corporation Ltd. &
Anr. {AIR 2015 (NOC) 1281 (DEL)}
v) Judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of
Vikhas Pahwa vs. Ashok Kumar (John Doe) & Ors
in {CS (Comm) 38/2026}.
vi) Judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the
case of Uday Kumar vs. K.N.Vasanthappa (MFA
No.231/2026 c/w MFA No.232/2026 decided on
24th February 2026).
vii) Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Sahara India Real Estate Corporation
Limited and others vs. SEBI {(2012)10 SCC 603}
10. Per contra, Sri Vivek Subba Reddy, learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel – Sri
Dhananjaya C.P. for caveator/respondent Nos. 1 and 2
vehemently contends that the appeal filed by the
appellants/plaintiffs is not maintainable and is liable to be
dismissed for the reason that the appellants/plaintiffs have
not demonstrated any jurisdictional error, perversity,
misreading of evidence or violation of settled legal
– 31 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
principles. Therefore, he contends that the present
appeal preferred by the plaintiffs challenging the impugned
order is only to obtain a second opinion on facts already
considered by the trial Court.
10.1 It is further contended by learned senior
counsel that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are Producer and
Director of the film respectively and they are the only
persons directly involved in the creation, production and
exhibition of the film and therefore, the other parties to
the appeal proceedings and the suit, are not proper and
necessary parties. It is contended that the relief sought
in the application is also only against defendant Nos.1
and 2.
10.2 It is contended that under the banner of ‘Siri
Productions’, the defendant No.1 has directed a Kannada
Movie namely “BOSS”, which is produced by Sri Tanush
and that the said Producer has performed the lead role in
the said movie. It is also contended that the said movie,
– 32 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
“BOSS” is completed and on 4.3.2026, movie has been
viewed by the Examining Committee and has come to the
conclusion that the film is suitable for unrestricted public
exhibition, with an endorsement to carry out the
excisions/modifications in the film and accordingly, the
same was modified and on 5.3.2026 defendant no.3/CBFC
had issued letter bearing No.CA021612202500054.
Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have obtained necessary certificate
dated 17.3.2026 issued by defendant No.3/CBFC in favour
of the movie “BOSS” under the provisions of the
10.3 It is further contended that the hero in the
movie is a Cricketer by profession and the said hero is
named as “Tanush” and the said hero plays for BCB
Cricket Club. It is also contended that the said Tanush due
to his cricketing skills is widely regarded as one of the
greatest Cricketer and due to this, the fans conferred him
the title as “BOSS” in the movie. It is also contended that
the Tanush is also shown in the movie as a humble man
– 33 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
and generous person, who believes in respecting everyone
around him.
10.4 Learned senior counsel further contends that
the movie, “BOSS” is not yet released and the plaintiffs
have filed a suit in O.S. No.2151/2026 on the wild
guessing/imagination and have formed a self opinion that
the movie, “BOSS” is filmed based on the events occurred
in the Charge Sheet in S.C. No.1319/2024, which is
absolutely false and therefore, the entire arguments
advanced by learned senior counsel for the
appellants/plaintiffs cannot be accepted and has to be
rejected on this score itself.
10.5 It is further contended by learned senior
counsel that the movie, “BOSS” does not contain any
name, photographs, family details, profession of plaintiff
No.1 or any other particulars, which may lead to the
disclosure of alleged similarities of incident which is
subject matter of S.C. No.1319/2024 as alleged by the
– 34 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
plaintiffs. Therefore, none of the provisions of
Cinematography Act have been violated by defendant
Nos.1 and 2 in any manner whatsoever. If at all any such
violation was available, the same would have come to the
light of the defendant No.3/CBFC for denying the
certification in favour of the defendants 1 and 2. Having
not found any such violations, the certification has been
issued to the film by CBFC on 17.03.2026 under the
Cinematograph Act and the relevant Rules. Therefore, he
contends that this aspect with regard to violation has been
examined by the statutory authority and the same has
been found to be fit for public exhibition without any
objectionable or unlawful content, and the certification
process being a statutory, quasi-judicial exercise, Courts
are expected to respect the expert opinion of the Board
and not to interfere lightly with the certified film except in
cases of clear violation of law or material injury to public
interest.
– 35 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
10.6 It is further contended that defendant No.4 is
the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC), which
is an industry related association and does not have any
role in production, certification or exhibition of the film and
neither defendant No.1 nor defendant No.2 has entered
into any business, transaction or title registration with
defendant no. 4 in relation to the film. Therefore
respondent no. 4/defendant No.4 is not necessary and
proper party in the present proceedings.
10.7 Learned senior counsel further contends that
the film, “BOSS” was scheduled for theatrical release on
24.04.2026, but the same has not been released yet in
view of order of injunction granted by the trial Court
initially. Thereby, in view of the delay in release of the
film, defendant nos. 1 and 2 have incurred loss of more
than one crore rupees.
– 36 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
10.8 Learned senior counsel contends that there is a
clear disclaimer at the initial portion of the movie, “BOSS”,
which is as follows:
“All characters, names, places and events
depicted in this film are purely fictions. This
film has absolutely no resemblance of the
character to actual person, living or dead.
Any similarity of the events herein depicted to
the actual happening whether past or present
is entirely coincidental, unintentional and is
not to hurt any moral, religious or
sentimental feelings of any community, caste,
or person. We do not promote any of the
situation seen this film”.
10.9 It is further contended that there is absolutely
no resemblance in the movie of any person’s life or events
in any manner whatsoever, muchless the life of the
plaintiff no.1. Despite the same, the defendants nos. 1 and
2 have taken necessary precautionary measures in
exhibiting a Disclaimer in the opening frame of the movie
itself as the same is vital legal and regulatory tool used
– 37 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
primarily to mitigate liability and manage audience
expectations.
10.10 Learned senior counsel contends that there is
absolutely no question of invading any privacy, much less
that of the plaintiffs. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.,) -vs- Union
of India reported in (2017)10 SCC 1 clarified that public
information and fictional expression cannot be equated
with private data and cannot be restrained solely on
grounds of privacy.
10.11 Learned senior counsel also contends that the
film is based on fiction and imagination and does not
infringe on any person’s true life events. Therefore, it
cannot be said that there is infringement of privacy of any
public personality or a person’s privacy. Learned senior
counsel also contends that in the entire movie, there is no
mention of either the case number or the trial which is
going on in S.C. No.1319/2024 against the plaintiffs It is
– 38 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
further contended that by filing a suit and the present
appeal, a movie which is an imagination & expression of
art cannot be barred for exhibition merely on the ground
that certain generalized similarities exist with the real
world events.
10.12 Learned senior counsel further contends that
in the movie, there is absolutely no resemblance of either
a true name, true life events of the plaintiff or any
person. The Director of the movie has publicly stated that
the film is completely fictional and does not portray any
real life incident or person, and the protagonist of the film
is portrayed as a cricketer engaged in social service, with
no involvement in any crime, and the storyline of the film
does not in any manner depict any incident connected to
the plaintiffs, nor does it seek to defame or disparage
them. The question of trying to put fetters to feathers of a
flying bird is uncalled for, as freedom of Speech and
expression is a fundamental right of every citizen of this
Country.
– 39 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
10.13 Learned senior counsel further contends that
the movie, “BOSS” does not contain any name,
photographs, family details, profession of the plaintiff No.
1 or any other particulars, which would lead to the
disclosure of alleged similarities of incident, which is a
subject matter of S.C. No.1319/2024. Learned counsel
also contends that defendant nos. 1 and 2 are Producer
and Director of the movie respectively and they are
entitled to practice their trade and profession. Accordingly,
they have directed the movie, “BOSS” which is a creative
fiction and a work of art and in exercise of the
constitutional rights conferred by Article-19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India, they are at liberty to produce and
publish the said movie in accordance with law without
violating any of the procedures contemplated under the
Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the censorship of the CBFC
Board.
10.14 Learned senior counsel also contends that
Renukaswamy murder case involving actor – Darshan
– 40 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
(plaintiff No.1) is in the public domain and widely reported
in the electronic media, print media and social media and
it is also true that this is presently subject matter of S.C.
No.1319/2024, which remains in public eye and the same
has been extensively covered, with details of the remand
applications, police investigations and alleged evidence
discussed widely.
10.15 Learned senior counsel contends that the film,
“BOSS” is a purely fictional work created solely for
entertainment purposes. The protagonist of the film does
not commit any murder, kidnap, grievous assault etc.,
The protagonist also has no knowledge of any involvement
or connection with the alleged kidnapping case, fatal
assault. So also all characters, incidents, events,
dialogues, situations portrayed in the film are entirely
fictional and are the product of the writer’s imagination.
They are not intended to depict or refer to any real
person, living or dead, any actual event, or any pending
judicial proceedings. Any resemblance to any person,
– 41 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
event or case is purely coincidental and unintended. It is
further contended that the film is not based on any real
life incident and does not seek to portray, influence or
comment upon any pending criminal or civil proceedings.
Whereas, it is a pure work of fiction protected as an
artistic and creative expression, intended solely for
entertainment. Learned senior counsel further contends
that the murder allegations against the plaintiff no. 1 in
S.C. No. 1319/2024 are nowhere connected and in the film
“BOSS”, there is absolutely no such allegation against the
hero. The film “BOSS” does not portray or recreate any
identifiable court trial, judicial proceedings relating to any
real or pending case. Any courtroom or legal references, if
any are purely fictional and are not intended to depict or
represent any actual judicial proceedings.
10.16 Learned senior counsel contends that in the
police charge sheet of the plaintiff no. 1’s case which is
before the trial Court, there are 17 accused persons,
whereas the film “BOSS” does not contain 17 accused
– 42 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
persons Further, the number of characters, their identities,
their respective roles and sequence of events in the film
are materially different and is in no way related to what
the plaintiffs as alleged.
10.17 Learned senior counsel also contends that the
title of the movie, “BOSS” is a generic word and no
exclusive copyright has been obtained not to be used in
any film or a movie and as the word, “BOSS” is a generic
word, there have been many movies made under this title
in different languages. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim
a right of the name in his favour.
10.18 Learned senior counsel further contends that
the present appeal is founded on assumptions, conjectures
and surmises rather than on any concrete factual and legal
basis and the plaintiffs have failed to specifically point out
any scene, dialogue, poster or trailer that causes
actionable defamation, infringement of personality rights
– 43 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
or other legal injury or any privacy issues or violation of
the privacy of the plaintiff.
10.19 Learned senior counsel further contends that
films and movies are a medium of expression protected
under Article 19(1)(a). Of course, the same is subject to
reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the
Constitution of India.
10.20 Learned senior counsel further contends that
once CBFC has given a certification for release of the film,
Courts cannot and should not normally sit as a Super
Censor Board as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Bobby Art International -vs- Om Pal Sinh
Hoon reported in (1996)4 SCC 1. It is also contended by
learned Senior Counsel that once such certification has
been issued by the CBFC, the court should restrain itself
from granting any injunction order for the reason that
the freedom of expression requires to be protected and
also upheld.
– 44 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
10.21 Learned senior counsel contends that in the
case of Nachiketa Walhekar -vs- Central Board of
Film Certification reported in (2018)15 SCC 1, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the creative freedom and
work of art must be protected and the Courts should
interfere only in cases involving a clear violation of law or
injurious effect to public interest. Therefore, he contends
that there is absolutely no violation of any of the Act or
the Rules formulated by the Union of India or the State
and the defendants have not violated or infringed any
fundamental rights of privacy of the plaintiffs as such,
muchless covering the incident in S.C. No. 1319/2024 as
alleged by the plaintiffs.
10.22 Learned senior counsel further contends that
the plaintiff No.1 is an actor by profession, whereas, the
protagonist Hero in the movie is a Cricketer by profession.
It is also contended that the hero in the movie is finally
shown to be elected as an M.L.A. of a particular assembly
constituency. Therefore, the contents of the movie and
– 45 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
the contents of the incident which is subject matter of S.C.
No.1319/2024 are totally different. Therefore, the right to
privacy of the plaintiffs would not be affected by virtue of
release of the movie. Learned Senior counsel further
contends that no doubt the Hon’ble Apex Court has held
that right to fair trial is a fundamental right, but the
Courts and the investigation agencies do not rely upon
cinematographic films to render its decision or carry out
any investigations.
10.23 Learned senior counsel further contends that
while considering an application for grant of injunction, the
trial Court is required to see the requirements of prima
facie case, balance of convenience and hardship that
would be caused to the parties and should not conduct a
mini trial on merits of the case to decide that application.
It is for the plaintiffs to make out a good ground and
cogent reason for grant of temporary injunction in such
matters. The Courts are required to see which party is
going to be affected and more hardship and irreparable
– 46 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
loss would be caused to which party rather than on the
reputation of the plaintiff.
10.24 Learned senior counsel further contends that
in the guise of filing the suit and in the guise of there
being a criminal case against the plaintiffs and other
accused and in the guise of the film, “BOSS” claimed to be
the real story of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs and their
henchmen have threatened and targeted the defendants
and their family members and associates through social
media and sensationalizing reports. Therefore, there is a
threat also to the lives of the defendant no. 1 and no. 2
and their families from the hands of plaintiffs.
10.25 It is also contended by learned Senior Counsel
that in the event, the plaintiff No.1 is able to establish in
the course of trial that the movie in question is based on
his real life story and that the same would cause serious
injury to the reputation of the plaintiffs and on being
successful, the plaintiffs could be suitably compensated.
– 47 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
But, the same cannot be done as against the defendant
nos. 1 and 2 if the plaintiffs fail, as by then the defendants
would have gone bankrupt and would have lost huge sum
of money for non-release of the new movie, in case any
order of injunction is granted. Therefore, learned Senior
counsel contends that there is no merit in the submissions
made by learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs as
the movie “BOSS” is not a biopic of the plaintiff no.1,
neither the hero in the movie is a film personality. There is
no similarity whatsoever with the plaintiff no.1. Infact,
there is a clear disclaimer at the initial portion of the
movie “BOSS”. The storyline is different, may be some of
the instances are taken from the public domain. But that
by itself will not prevent the defendants 1 and 2 from
publishing a movie based on public records and public
domain.
10.26 It is also contended by the learned senior
counsel that all the events which are narrated by the
plaintiffs are as it is available in the public domain. It is
– 48 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
also contended that Plaintiff has not been duplicated in the
movie. The hero in the movie has not been tainted as a
bad person or having committed any crime. The story in a
movie is totally fictional and the creation of art by the
Director and Producer. Such work of art cannot be
restrained by an order of injunction as the same would fall
within fundamental right guaranteed under Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
10.27 On these grounds, learned senior counsel
appearing for respondent/defendant Nos.1 and 2 seeks to
dismiss the appeal.
10.28 In support of his contentions, learned senior
counsel relied upon the following judgments:
1. Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Nachiketa Walhekar Vs. Central Board of Film
Certification and Another {(2018) 1 SCC 778}
2. Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of R.Rajagopal Alias R R Gopal and another Vs. State
of T.N. and others {(1994) 6 SCC 632}
– 49 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026CNR: KAHC010403232026
3. Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Adarsh Co-operative Housing Society Limited
Vs.Union of India and others {(2018) 17 SCC 516}
4. Judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of
Mohammed Javed Vs. Union of India and Others
{W.P.(c) 11876/2025, CM Appeal 48480/2025 & CM
Appeal 48481/2025 decided on 7.8.2025}
5. Judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of
Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf Vs. Peppy Store and others
{(2024) 2 High Court Cases (Del) 253}
6. Judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the
case of T-Series (also known as Super Cassettes
Industries Private Limited) and Another Vs.
Dreamline Reality Movies and Others { 2024 SCC
OnLine P&H 661}
7. Judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of
Digital Collectibles PTE LTD and Others Vs. Galactus
Funware Technology Private Limited and Another
{CS (COMM) 108/2023 dated 26th April 2023}
8. Judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of
Krishna Kishore Singh Vs. Sarla A Saraogi & Others
{2021 SCC OnLine Del 3146}
– 50 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026CNR: KAHC010403232026
11. Having heard learned senior counsel appearing
for appellants and learned senior counsel appearing for
respondents, the points that would arise for consideration
in this appeal are:
“i) Whether there is any perversity or
illegality in the impugned order passed by
the trial Court?
ii) Whether the impugned order passed by
the trial Court calls for interference and if
so, what order?”
12. The three essential ingredients to be seen by
the Court while considering the application for Temporary
Injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of
Civil Procedure are prima facie case; balance of
convenience; and hardship that would be caused more to
the aggrieved party. The burden is on the plaintiff by
evidence aliunde by affidavit or otherwise that there is “a
prima facie case” in his favour which needs adjudication at
the trial. Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by
– 51 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The Court further
has to satisfy that non-interference by the Court would
result in “irreparable injury” to the party seeking relief and
that there is no other remedy available to the party except
one to grant injunction. Irreparable injury, however, does
not mean that there must be no physical possibility of
repairing the injury, but means only that the injury must
be a material one, namely one that cannot be adequately
compensated by way of damages. The third condition also
is that “the balance of convenience” must be in favour of
granting injunction. The Court while granting or refusing to
grant injunction should exercise sound judicial discretion
to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which
is likely to be caused to the parties, if the injunction is
refused and compare it with that which is likely to be
caused to the other side if the injunction is granted. Thus
the Court has to exercise its sound judicial discretion in
granting or refusing the relief of ad interim injunction
pending the suit.
– 52 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
13. In the backdrop of the facts of the case, the
contentions of the learned Senior counsel from both sides
and the judgments relied, this Court will have to consider
the above three points.
14. In the present case on hand, the plaintiffs are
aggrieved on the basis of teaser of the movie ‘BOSS’ being
identical and similar to the life story of plaintiff No.1 and
that it is taken out deliberately from the crime that
plaintiff No.1 is alleged to have committed, where he is
currently under trial prisoner in S.C.No.1319/2024. It is
not in dispute that the name of the movie is ‘BOSS’. It is
also not in dispute that in the movie, the hero is a
celebrity and there are minor similarities to the criminal
case that is ongoing, in which plaintiff No.1 is accused
No.2. But the question is whether merely for the reason of
certain similarities and there being certain identical
circumstances, the freedom of speech and expression as
provided under fundamental right under Article 19 (1) can
– 53 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
be curtailed to fetter the wings of an artist, who wants to
portray a creation and imagination of a piece of art and a
movie, which is based on fiction may be with few
similarities of the present ongoing criminal case, taken out
from the public domain where plaintiff No.1 is involved?
15. It is no doubt true that the plaintiffs certainly
have the right to protect their personal life and liberty and
it is also true that Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees the
right to freedom of speech and expression would be
subject to reasonable restrictions. Nevertheless, all these
aspects that are canvassed cannot be seen in an isolated
manner of individual points of violation or breach with
regard to personal liberty, the movie having certain
similarities, the criminal matter being sub-judice and so
also with regard to the personal damage or injury that
would be caused to the plaintiffs.
16. It is apparently seen that the movie is not a life
story of plaintiff No.1. The whole movie is not absolutely
– 54 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
what plaintiff No.1 is implicated in the criminal trial, where
he is an under trial prisoner. But there are certain
similarities of the incident that has taken place in criminal
case in S.C.No.1319/2024 based on the information taken
from public domain. It is a fact that the Central Board of
Film Certification has issued Certification, which is the
Censor Board and Statutory Authority to certify if the
movie can be released and if there are any fetters to be
imposed or any scenes to be cut from the movie for public
viewing. It is also a fact that the CBFC has issued a
certificate by giving a clean chit, however, by imposing
certain conditions for removal of few things and causing
disclaimers while displaying the movie. Therefore, once
the Statutory Authority, which is an expert body, after
evaluation has issued certification for release and
screening of the movie, then in my humble opinion, the
Court should not sit as a Super Censor Board over the
expert body, which has evaluated the movie after proper
verification and after putting certain restrictions.
– 55 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
17. It is also seen that pursuant to plaintiff No.1
implicated in the criminal case, the press and electronic
media have been reporting the case based on Court
hearings and may be based on the investigation on a daily
basis. Therefore, lot of materials with regard to plaintiff
No.1’s criminal case are in the public domain. Therefore,
the materials in the movie are taken out from the public
domain. When such being the case, it cannot be said that
there is any infringement of the constitutional right of
privacy of the plaintiffs being infringed.
18. It is no doubt true that the criminal trial is
under progress. The matter has reached the Hon’ble Apex
Court for grant of certain reliefs, for bail and etc. The
Hon’ble Apex Court has passed an order directing the trial
Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously and the same
is under progress. Merely for the reason that the matter is
sub-judice in the Courts, it does not mean that the movie
should not be released as it may affect the personal liberty
– 56 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
of the plaintiffs as claimed. It is to be seen that Article
19(1)(a) is a fundamental right of freedom of speech and
expression of a person to demonstrate a creation,
imagination and conceptualisation of peace of art and
movie based on fiction and even if there is certain
similarities, the freedom of speech and expression as
provided under Article 19(1) cannot be curtailed unless it
violates and breaches the requirement of Article 19 (2)
i.e., the imposition of reasonable restriction in such an
expression of art. At this stage, this Court is inclined to
observe that merely because a movie is released
depicting few instances, which may be similar to the
ongoing trial, it cannot be said that the Courts dealing with
such criminal trial would be influenced or swayed away by
such depiction of art or similarities in the movie to decide
the merits of the criminal trial. It is needless to mention
that when the Courts are well equipped and has the
wisdom to decide the matter on its legalities, not to
mention on the basis of materials placed on record, both
– 57 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
oral and documentary and on the basis of the statements
of the witnesses and other host of things which are bound
by the limitations of law and legal precedents, but
certainly not the depiction made in a movie, which may be
having certain similarities or identicalities.
19. It is also relevant to see that making of a movie
is not as simple as it is to watch a movie. It involves lot of
thinking. The expression of an artist’s mind, creative mind,
innovative thinking of a director, the huge expenses that
would be incurred in making of the movie. So there is lot
of financial investments in making of a movie and stopping
or curtailing the release of the movie would have severe
financial implications, loss and consequences. No doubt, it
is true the Court has to weigh as to which of the parties
would be incurring more hardship and inconvenience and
loss while deciding the application for either grant or
rejection of temporary injunction, apart from prima facie
case and the balance of convenience.
– 58 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
20. It is relevant to see what is the scope of the
appellate Court while considering the application under
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 either for grant or rejection of
the relief. In the case of Wander Ltd. -vs- Antox India
P. Ltd reported in 1990 Supp SCC 727, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held the emphasis is more as to see
whether there is any perversity in the order by the trial
Court than a mere error of fact or law in the order of
granting injunction. It is also relevant to see that the basis
of substituting a view of the trial Court should be
malafides, capriciousness, arbitrariness or perversity. It
is also relevant to understand this Court will have to see
whether the discretionary order granted by the trial Court
calls for any interference on the ground of perversity.
Even if this Court were to come to a conclusion that there
could be some other conclusion that could have been
arrived at by this Court, the same cannot be replaced with
a discretionary powers exercised by the trial Court.
– 59 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
21. In the case of Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v.
Harish Ambalal Choksi reported in (2024) 11 SCC 351
by relying upon the judgment in the case of Wander Ltd.
v. Antox India P. Ltd., the Hon’ble Apex Court has once
again reiterated the principles governing grant of
temporary injunction. Paragraph No.34 would be relevant
and the same is extracted as under:
“34. The burden is on the plaintiff, by
evidence aliunde by affidavit or otherwise, to prove
that there is “a prima facie case” in his favour
which needs adjudication at the trial. The existence
of the prima facie right and infraction of the
enjoyment of his property or the right is a condition
precedent for the grant of temporary injunction.
Prima facie case is not to be confused with prima
facie title which has to be established on evidence
at the trial. Only prima facie case is a substantial
question raised, bona fide, which needs
investigation and a decision on merits. Satisfaction
that there is a prima facie case by itself is not
sufficient to grant injunction. The Court further has
to satisfy that non- interference by the court would
result in “irreparable injury” to the party seeking
– 60 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026CNR: KAHC010403232026
relief and that there is no other remedy available to
the party except one to grant injunction and he
needs protection from the consequences of
apprehended injury or dispossession. Irreparable
injury, however, does not mean that there must be
no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but
means only that the injury must be a material one,
namely one that cannot be adequately
compensated by way of damages. The third
condition also is that “the balance of convenience”
must be in favour of granting injunction. The Court
while granting or refusing to grant injunction should
exercise sound judicial discretion to find the
amount of substantial mischief or injury which is
likely to be caused to the parties, if the injunction is
refused and compare it with that which is likely to
be caused to the other side if the injunction is
granted. If on weighing competing possibilities or
probabilities of likelihood of injury and if the Court
considers that pending the suit, the subject matter
should be maintained in status quo, an injunction
would be issued. Thus, the Court has to exercise its
sound judicial discretion in granting or refusing the
relief of ad interim injunction pending the suit.
(See: Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh reported in
(1992) 1 SCC 719.)”
– 61 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026CNR: KAHC010403232026
22. In the case of Dalpat Kumar and anr. v.
Prahlad Singh and ors. reported in (1992) 1 SCC 719,
the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the principles of for
grant and non-grant of injunctions and the considerations
to be made therein. Paragraph No.5 would be relevant and
the same is extracted hereunder:
“5. Therefore, the burden is on the plaintiff
by evidence aliunde by affidavit or otherwise that
there is “a prima facie case” in his favour which
needs adjudication at the trial. The existence of the
prima facie right and infraction of the enjoyment of
his property or the right is a condition for the grant
of temporary injunction. Prima facie case is not to
be confused with prima facie title which has to be
established, on evidence at the trial. Only prima
facie case is a substantial question raised, bona
fide, which needs investigation and a decision on
merits. Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case
by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The
Court further has to satisfy that non-interference by
the Court would result in “irreparable injury” to the
party seeking relief and that there is no other
remedy available to the party except one to grant
injunction and he needs protection from the
– 62 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
consequences of apprehended injury or
dispossession. Irreparable injury, however, does
not mean that there must be no physical possibility
of repairing the injury, but means only that the
injury must be a material one, namely one that
cannot be adequately compensated by way of
damages. The third condition also is that “the
balance of convenience” must be in favour of
granting injunction. The Court while granting or
refusing to grant injunction should exercise sound
judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial
mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the
parties, if the injunction is refused and compare it
with that which is likely to be caused to the other
side if the injunction is granted. If on weighing
competing possibilities or probabilities of likelihood
of injury and if the Court considers that pending the
suit, the subject matter should be maintained in
status quo, an injunction would be issued. Thus the
Court has to exercise its sound judicial discretion in
granting or refusing the relief of ad interim
injunction pending the suit.”
23. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the very same
judgment held “the phrases ‘prima facie’, ‘balance of
convenience’ and ‘irreparable loss’ are not rhetoric phrases
– 63 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
for incantation, but words of width and elasticity, to meet
myriad situations presented by men’s ingenuity in given
facts and circumstances, but always is hedged with sound
exercise of judicial discretion to meet the ends of justice.
24. It is also to be seen whether the order of the
trial Court is perverse. Any order made in conscious
violation of a pleading or law would be a perverse order.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nachiketa
Walhekar -vs- Central Board of Film Certification and
another reported in (2018)1 SCC 778 while dealing with a
similar situation of a film or a drama or a novel or a book
is a creation of art, held at paragraphs 4 to 7 as under:
“4. The thrust of the matter is whether this
Court should entertain the writ petition and pass an
order of injunction directing CBFC to delete the clip
and further not to get the movie released in
theatres on 17-11-2017. It is worthy to mention
that freedom of speech and expression is
sacrosanct and the said right should not be
ordinarily interfered with. That apart, when
Respondent 1, CBFC, has granted the certificate
– 64 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026CNR: KAHC010403232026
and only something with regard to the petitioner,
which was shown in the media, is being reflected in
the film, this Court should restrain itself in not
entertaining the writ petition or granting injunction.
5. Be it noted, a film or a drama or a novel
or a book is a creation of art. An artist has his own
freedom to express himself in a manner which is
not prohibited in law and such prohibitions are not
read by implication to crucify the rights of the
expressive mind. The human history records that
there are many authors who express their thoughts
according to the choice of their words, phrases,
expressions and also create characters who may
look absolutely different than an ordinary man
would conceive of. A thought-provoking film should
never mean that it has to be didactic or in any way
puritanical. It can be expressive and provoking the
conscious or the subconscious thoughts of the
viewer. If there has to be any limitation, that has to
be as per the prescription in law.
6. The courts are to be extremely slow to
pass any kind of restraint order in such a situation
and should allow the respect that a creative man
enjoys in writing a drama, a play, a playlet, a book
on philosophy, or any kind of thought that is
expressed on the celluloid or theatre, etc.
– 65 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
7. Needless to emphasise, the
apprehension of the petitioner that this
documentary would be used as evidence during the
trial is not to be commented upon as that would be
for the trial court to adjudge under the Evidence
Act and we are sure, the trial court should exercise
its jurisdiction in accordance with law.”
25. In the case of R. Rajagopal @ R.R. Gopal and
another -vs- State of T.N. and others reported in
(1994)6 SCC 632, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at
paragraphs 26 and 29 as under:
“26. We may now summarise the broad principles
flowing from the above discussion:
(1) The right to privacy is implicit in the right to
life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this
country by Article 21. It is a “right to be let
alone”. A citizen has a right to safeguard the
privacy of his own, his family, marriage,
procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and
education among other matters. None can publish
anything concerning the above matters without
his consent — whether truthful or otherwise and
whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he
– 66 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026CNR: KAHC010403232026
would be violating the right to privacy of the
person concerned and would be liable in an action
for damages. Position may, however, be different,
if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into
controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a
controversy.
(2) The rule aforesaid is subject to the exception,
that any publication concerning the aforesaid
aspects becomes unobjectionable if such
publication is based upon public records including
court records. This is for the reason that once a
matter becomes a matter of public record, the
right to privacy no longer subsists and it becomes
a legitimate subject for comment by press and
media among others. We are, however, of the
opinion that in the interests of decency [Article
19(2)] an exception must be carved out to this
rule, viz., a female who is the victim of a sexual
assault, kidnap, abduction or a like offence should
not further be subjected to the indignity of her
name and the incident being publicised in
press/media.
(3) There is yet another exception to the rule in
(1) above — indeed, this is not an exception but
an independent rule. In the case of public officials,
it is obvious, right to privacy, or for that matter,
– 67 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026CNR: KAHC010403232026
the remedy of action for damages is simply not
available with respect to their acts and conduct
relevant to the discharge of their official duties.
This is so even where the publication is based
upon facts and statements which are not true,
unless the official establishes that the publication
was made (by the defendant) with reckless
disregard for truth. In such a case, it would be
enough for the defendant (member of the press or
media) to prove that he acted after a reasonable
verification of the facts; it is not necessary for him
to prove that what he has written is true. Of
course, where the publication is proved to be false
and actuated by malice or personal animosity, the
defendant would have no defence and would be
liable for damages. It is equally obvious that in
matters not relevant to the discharge of his
duties, the public official enjoys the same
protection as any other citizen, as explained in (1)
and (2) above. It needs no reiteration that
judiciary, which is protected by the power to
punish for contempt of court and Parliament and
legislatures protected as their privileges are by
Articles 105 and 104 respectively of the
Constitution of India, represent exceptions to this
rule.
– 68 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
(4) So far as the Government, local authority and
other organs and institutions exercising
governmental power are concerned, they cannot
maintain a suit for damages for defaming them.
(5) Rules 3 and 4 do not, however, mean that
Official Secrets Act, 1923, or any similar
enactment or provision having the force of law
does not bind the press or media.
(6) There is no law empowering the State or its
officials to prohibit, or to impose a prior restraint
upon the press/media.
29. Applying the above principles, it must be
held that the petitioners have a right to publish,
what they allege to be the life story/autobiography
of Auto Shankar insofar as it appears from the
public records, even without his consent or
authorisation. But if they go beyond that and
publish his life story, they may be invading his right
to privacy and will be liable for the consequences in
accordance with law. Similarly, the State or its
officials cannot prevent or restrain the said
publication. The remedy of the affected public
officials/public figures, if any, is after the
publication, as explained hereinabove.”
– 69 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
26. In the case of Adarsh Cooperative Housing
Society Limited -vs- Union of India and others
reported in (2018)17 SCC 516, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held at paragraphs 15, 17 and 18 as under:
“15. At this juncture, we may also state that
the doctrine of sub judice may not be elevated to
such an extent that some kind of reference or
allusion to a member of a society would warrant
the negation of the right to freedom of speech and
expression which is an extremely cherished right
enshrined under the Constitution. The moment the
right to freedom of speech and expression is
atrophied, not only the right but also the person
having the right gets into a semi-coma. We may
hasten to add that the said right is not absolute
but any restriction imposed thereon has to be
extremely narrow and within reasonable
parameters. In the case at hand, we are obligated
to think that the grant of certificate by the CBFC,
after consulting with the authorities of the Army,
should dispel any apprehension of the members of
the Society.
17. The nature of the present matter
compels us to recapitulate that the human history
is replete with struggles to get freedom, be it
– 70 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026CNR: KAHC010403232026
physical or mental or spiritual. The creativity of a
person impels him not to be tied down or chained
to the established ideals or get enslaved to the
past virtues and choose to walk on the trodden
path. He aspires to rejoice with the new ideas and
exerts himself to achieve the complete fruition.
That is the determination for moving from being to
becoming, from existence to belonging and from
ordinary assumption to sublime conception. The
creative intelligence kicks his thinking process to
live without a fixed target but toying with many a
target.
18. We would be failing in our duty if we do
not note the last plank of submission of Mr Hegde.
He would suggest that this Court may direct the
producer and director of the film to add a
disclaimer so that no member of the Society would
ultimately be affected by the film. The aforesaid
submission on a first blush may seem quite
attractive but on a slightly further scrutiny, if we
allow ourselves to say so, has to melt into oblivion.
Whether there is the necessity of “disclaimer” or
not has to be decided by the Censor Board which is
the statutory authority that grants the certificate.
In fact, when a disclaimer is sought to be added,
the principle of natural justice is also attracted. To
– 71 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026CNR: KAHC010403232026
elaborate, the producer or director is to be
afforded an opportunity of hearing. The Court
should not add any disclaimer for the asking.
Addition of a disclaimer is a different concept
altogether. It is within the domain of the authority
to grant certificate and to ask the director to add a
disclaimer in the beginning of the movie to avoid
any kind of infraction of guidelines. Though the
suggestion is made in right earnest by Mr. Sanjay
Hegde, yet we are impelled not to accept the
same.”
27. It is seen that Central Board of Film
Certification (CBFC) has already given a certification with
regard to film, ‘BOSS’ and there have been certain
disclaimers which have been made out in the film just
before the main movie starts in accordance to the
guidelines issued by the CBFC. The contention of learned
senior counsel – Sri Vivek Subba Reddy appearing for
respondents is placed on record that the disclaimer is
made and would be properly displayed before the film is
shown as to the same being not based on true life events.
– 72 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
28. In view of the aforesaid discussion and having
gone through the impugned order and the erudite
arguments of learned senior counsels appearing for
appellants and respondents, this Court is of the opinion
that there is no perversity, illegality or arbitrariness in the
impugned order passed by the trial Court. The reasons
assigned and the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court
are just and proper and the appellants have not made out
any good ground to interfere with the well-reasoned order
passed by the trial Court. Therefore, the points formulated
are answered accordingly.
29. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) This appeal stands dismissed.
(ii) This Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the matter.
– 73 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36677
MFA No. 4257 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010403232026
(iii) Observations made herein are only restricted
to the application under Order-XXXIX Rules –
1 and 2 of CPC.
(iv) In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending
interlocutory application, if any would not
survive for consideration and the same pales
into insignificance.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
GSS/VM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18
