The High Court · 2025

...Petitioner / Petitioner / Plaintiff AND i

1. M/s. Nagashekar Movies, A Registered Partnership Firm, Re-presented by its Managirig Partner, R. Nagashekar, S/o. Rachaiah and Mrs. Bhavana Ravi, omce-Ftit No 6, Plot No.Z47lP-1, Roshan ldeal Homes, Rajarajehswari Nagar, Bangalore - 560098, Mobile 9845O45556/Mail itl [email protected]

2. R. Nagashekar,, S/o. Rachaiah, Mapgng larlner of M/s.. Nagashekar Moviei, Omce Flat No 6, Plot No. 447lPJ, Roshan ldeal Homes, Rajarajbhswari Nagar, Bangalore 56O098, Mobile 9845045556 Mail id [email protected]

3. M/s. Manikanta Entertainments, A Registered Partnership Firm, Rep' by its - Managing Partner, Mrs. Bhavana Ravi Wo. Ravi, 9fficeFlat #A02, Ranka Apartireitg, Harsha Layout, Kengevi, Bangalore- 560 098' Mobile 7760867885

4. Mrs. Bhavana Ravi,, Wo. Ravi, Partner of M/s. Nagashekar Movies, Office Fiat A02, Ranka Apartments, Harsha Layout, Kengevi, Bangalore-560098, Mobile 7760867885

5. Pavithra lntemational Movie Makers, 2nd Cross Road, D-Block, Sri Krishna - earaen Layout, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bengalore, Kamataka-560098 6. Qube Cinema Technolcgies Pvt. Ud., No.1034, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Rajaji Nagar, 4th Block, Bangalore - 560 010 7 UFO Moviez lndia Limited. Crescent Towers, No. 3211_2, Crescent Road, Off Race Course Ro,ad, Bangalor"_- SOtj'OOi'-' - lA NO: I oF 2025 ...Respondents / Respondents / Defendants Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to set aside the orders of the il Additionar chief Judge, city civir court at Hyderabad passed in r.A.No.98 0t 2025 in i.A.No.41 0f 2025 in o.s.No. 08 0f 2025 dated 10.o1 .2025 dismissing the same, and extend the interim injunction ordersdatedoT.ol .2025passedinl.A.No.41 of 2O2SbytheHon,blell Additionat chief Judge, city civir court at Hyderabad tifl further orders pending disposar of this main Civil Revision petition in the interest of justice. Gounsel forthe Petitioner : Counsel forthe Respondents : The Court made the following Order : Sri Bandi Varaprasada Rao _-_ t THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL CTVIL REVISION PETITION No. 163 oF 2025 ORDER: Sri Bandi Varaprasada Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/Plaintiff.

2. This petition under Articl e 227 of ttre Constitution assails the order dated 1O'01'2025 passed in I'A'No'98 of 2025 in I.A.No.41 of 2025 in O'S'No'S of 2025' The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery' On the first day itself on 07'Ol'2O25' t}retrialCourtattachedthemovieSaryuWedsGeetha-2 conditionally and respondent Nos'1 to 4 were directed to furnish security to the suit cLaim within 24 hours' The matter was posted on O9.Ol -2025'

3. karned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that onog.ol.2o25,thedefend.antNo.5enteredappearancealrd filed Xerox coPy of Sale Deeds for Rs'72'OO'OOO/- whereas the suit for recovery was for an arnount of Rs'4'OO'OO'OOO/-' In addition, he frled an application on lO'Ol'2O25 under Order XXXIX Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure {CPC) for mod.ifying/vacating the order' The petitioner/plaintiff herein filed an application under Section 151 of CPC for extending the \ 2 interim order dated 07.01.2025. The trial Court uid.eimpugned order dated 10'o1'2025 declined to extend the aforesaid interim order. Aggrieved, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff urged that the prlliUpnsr/plaintiffwas not given opportunity to fire response to l-he application of defenda,t No.S l,ed under Order XXXIX Rule S CpC. The non_extension of interim order dated 07.01.2025; amounts to allowing the application filed under Order XXXLK Rule 4 CpC. In the restrlt, at present, there exists no interim protection/attachment and therefore the aforesaid movie wilr be released on 17.01-2025 which is evident from the poster (page No.2l9). Thus, it is prayed that the -;- ad interim order ini tially granted by triai Cou r,J Lr ritr uourt be directed to be extended.

5. Thi Court has heard the Iearned s petitioner/plaintiff at length. counsel for the 6 Before the trial Court, the petitioner/plaintiff for recovery. The triat Court in ttre impugned order recorded its liled a suit finding as under: ".. . .Further mcr ,"j""l:";:,:l#i1:,fi f i:!;:,"ffi ."^ff f Tj"*.;: /'r...avr,?'i,:i##il"?ffi"J::.:1,:f#*:n: i 3 no connection to the subject Movie except he being the Director of the said Movie. At the same time, petitioner even not put forth any materia,l on record at present stating that what is the share or the percentage of the interest of the respondent Nos. I to 4 and showing interest of the respondents. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the security offered by the respondent No.S at present can be treated as equivalent to the share of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and it is suflicient at this stage. If the securitv alreadv offered is not suflicient to satisftr the decree there are number of modes available, which are provided under the Civil Procedure Code to oroceed aqaln st the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for reaTization of decretal amount. L2- The other objection of the counsel for petitioner is that, respondent No.5 offered the securit5r to the satisfaction of I.A.No.42 of 2025 filed under Order X)Ofl/III Rule 5 of CPC and same cannot be a ground to modiff the order dated 07.O1.2O25 granted in I.A. No. 42 of 2025 or not to extend the same. As seen from the pleadines of the petitioner, his interest is onlv to secure the debt and see that decree is satisfred in case of decree passed aqainst the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and he has no other rieht and his claim is not aeainst the subiect Moyie and his claim is onlv realization of the amount, which is due from the respondent Nos 1 to 4. Since petitioner expressed arl apprehension that there is no possibili Er for realizadon of his decretal amount, if ttre Movib is rel,eased, considering the said interest of the petitioner, this Court stopped the releasing of the Movie till date, till some securit5r is offered to the debt of the petitioner and same is full-fill,ed by respondent No.S by offering his house property as securigr. In fact, oetitioner has no direct interest in the subiect Movie. Therefore. he cannot restrain the persons from releasine the said Movie and he.can only seek security for his debt. Therefore, the contention of the pe[itioner that the security offered only to the satisfaction of the relief sought for attachment before judgment, cannot be accepted. The Courts are a,lwavs vested with the

13. inherent already granted or decline to srant further to modifv the Interim Orders / DOw,er 4 extenslc)n vrew of tl-te ms tanc es alrd exercrsertsd s len t ns. Therefore, representation rn view of th the respond ents about the rnterest of respondent No.S and the third parties who arr: not es to the proceedings als<r suffering and this Court feels th at it can exercis<r its inher,ent jurisdiction to decide whether interim. order dat.ed 07.01 2025 can be further extend ed or e #t?:'.,"."*:il1itji5ir;*fi ;.,$:# \ (emphasis supplied) : l : ( 5

7. A plain reading of the hndings given by the trial Court shows that the principle reason for not extending the interim relief is that admittedly, the instant suit is a suit for recovery. If the petitioner/plaintiff ultimately succeeds, relief can be granted to him under various provisions of CPC and neither the Court will be helpless nor the petitioner/plaintiff will be remediless. In this backdrop, the trial Court opined that since only interest of the petitioner/plaintiff is to secure the debt and ensure that the decree is satished, there is no point to stop the release of the movie.

8. The question is whether said frnding arrived at by the trial Court is liable to be interfered with. This is trite that interference under Article 227 of the Constitution can be made on limited grounds. If the impugned order suffers from any jurisdiction error, palpable perversity or manifest procedural \ \ impropriety, interference can be made. Another view is possible, is not a ground for interference. g. If the impugned order is tested on the envil of aforesaid principles laid down in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patilt, it will be clear that the trial Court has taken a plausible view. If the petitioner/plaintiff ultimately succeeds in t (zoro)g scc gzg ( I 6 the suit for recovery, his claim can be satisfied. The non- release of aforesaid movie, on the other hand, may cause irreparable injury to the other side, which carnot be compensated in terms of money in the instant suit. The argument that Order XXXIX Rule 4 application is still pending etc., are technical in nature. This was not the argument of the learned counsel rbr the petitioner/plaintiff that the trial court did not have jurisdiction not to extend the interim order. Thus, this Court finds n.o reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.01.2025.

10. The Civil Rerrision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneou:s applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. sd/- PfADMA$+BREt,EF DDY RAR I /TTRUE COPY// SECT1ON OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional Chief Judge Court' City Civil Court at Hyderabad 2. One CC to Sri Bandi Varaprasada Rao' Advocate [OPUCI 3. Two CD CoPies VA o HIGH COURT DATED:1610112025 t I ORDER CRP.No.163 of 2025 1 r\a Si! i€-- 18 J[[ t6 C,l .i: ,J /)r:q.' * /:/ :/ DISMISSING THE CRP 9^, \4D