The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9298 MFA No. 1404 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1404 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. BABY NAGU SHARMA D/O LATE K R GURUPRASAD AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GAURDIAN SMT. SUMITHRA GURUPRASAD RESIDING AT NO.52M, TYPE-2, CPRI STAFF COLONY, NEW BEL ROAD BANGALORE - 560 012 2. SMT. SUMITHRA GURUPRASAD W/O LATE GURUPRASAD K R, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.52M, TYPE-2, CPRI STAFF COLONY, NEW BEL ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 012 (BY SRI. DILIP KUMAR I.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAM MOVIES NO.63, PALM GARDEN LAYOUT, BELVADI, KOORGALLI, MYSORE - 570 018 REPRESENTED ITS PROPRIETOR RAMESH M 2. SHRI BRV DIXIT S/O B S RAMASWAMY DIXIT AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT A1 01-03, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …APPELLANTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9298 MFA No. 1404 of 2025 ELITA PROMENADE, PHASE-7, JP NAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 078 (BY SRI. ARUN K.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. AJAY .S. ADVOCATE FOR C/R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(R) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 IN O.S.NO.1221/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH.NO. 3), DISMISSING THE I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appeal is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the order passed in O.S.No.1221/2025 dated 25.02.2025 passed by the Court of XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 03), thereby dismissing IA No.I filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 R/w Section 151 of CPC and thereby an order of temporary injunction granted on 19.02.2025 is vacated. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9298 MFA No. 1404 of 2025 2. Rank of the parties is referred to as per their
Legal Reasoning
rankings before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiffs filed the suit against defendants for the relief of declaration of document and to declare that document styled as "Paraspara Odambadike Patra" dated 13.11.2024 executed before the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (for short 'the KFCC') as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and other persons claiming under them from releasing the schedule movie "Eddelu Manjunatha-2" without ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the plaintiffs either in theaters or any other over the top platforms and also mandatory injunction prohibiting the defendants to release the schedule movie with the banner of defendant No.1 or any other banners other than ‘K.R.Guruprasad INC’ and also an order of injunction restraining the defendants or their agents to release the movie without settling the dues of plaintiffs towards remuneration of late K.R.Guruprasad for his direction, story screenplay, dialogues, lyrics. 4. The Trial Court has granted exparte temporary injunction as prayed in IA No.I under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9298 MFA No. 1404 of 2025 CPC on 19.02.2025. On 20.02.2025 defendant No.2 appeared before the Court and filed advancement application to file vakalathnama and on 21.02.2025 defendant No.2 has appeared and filed written statement and memo adopting the written statement as objection to IA No.I. The defendant No.2 admitted that one K.R.Guruprasad, who is the father of plaintiff No.1 and husband of plaintiff No.2, was the Actor and Director in the Kannada Film Industry and had the respectable name in the Society regarding the talent exposed by K.R.Guruprasad as contained in the plaint. But defendant No.2 denied that "Eddelu Manjunatha-2” was the dream project of K.R.Guruprasad, which was registered in his name banner ‘Guruprasad INC’ and stated that it is a concocted story by the plaintiffs. 5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that late K.R.Guruprasad proposed plan with the investors that people can come and invest money in his movie as a share holder and his share was valued at the rate of Rs.20,000/-. It is proposed that whoever buys a share by paying the share value, same will be utilized by late K.R.Guruprasad for production of the movie "Eddelu Manjunatha - 2" and after release of the movie from - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9298 MFA No. 1404 of 2025 banner of K.R.Guruprasad INC, all the share holders were initially entitled to save their share amount from the receipts of the film release in theater and documents will be shared equally as per the receipts arising out of the said movie. As per knowledge of the plaintiffs, there are 65 share holders to the movie "Eddelu Manjunatha - 2" and among them, defendant Nos.1 and 2 were also major share holders for having invested money for the said movie. When the said movie shooting was about to complete and after completion of re-recording and dubbing was done, at that time, K.R.Guruprasad died on 03.11.2024. After demise of K.R.Guruprasad, the plaintiff No.2 being wife of K.R.Guruprasad was having custody of the hard disk raid which contained full movie of "Eddelu Manjunatha-2". After death of K.R.Guruprasad, the plaintiff No.2 requested the KFCC to restore the name of banner Guruprasad INC as she is the legal heir but the KFCC have insisted for death certificate of K.R.Guruprasad. While, the process in this is in progress, the defendants have made a conspiracy to deceive the plaintiffs and their right, title over the movie got created a document called as "Paraspara Odambadike Patra". Thereby, falsely created that the plaintiffs have relinquished the right over the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9298 MFA No. 1404 of 2025 movie after receiving the remuneration to be payable to K.R.Guruprasad and changed the banner from “Guruprasad INC” to “Ram Movies” and were about to release the movie and in such an event, if the movie is released under the banner “Ram movies”, then the plaintiffs would get irreparable loss/injury. Therefore, filed the suit for declaration for the reliefs above stated. 6. It is the case of the defendants that K.R.Guruprasad was the only Director and Actor but not a Producer and has not invested any money in creating the film and what ever remuneration was payable to K.R.Guruprasad was paid. Therefore, there is no balance amount to be payable to K.R.Guruprasad and to the plaintiffs. Further, though initially the film was restored under the banner of K.R.Guruprasad INC and after demise of the K.R.Guruprasad, defendants have made further investment for completion of the movie and thereafter before the KFCC, there was "Paraspara Odambadike Patra" dated 13.12.2024 that plaintiff No.2 had handed over the hard disk to the defendants, which contains full movie after receiving the balance amount payable to K.R.Guruprasad and thus, in this way, the defendants have got full control over the movie - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9298 MFA No. 1404 of 2025 for releasing the movie. Therefore, it is the case of the defendants that K.R.Guruprasad was only the Director and Actor and has not invested money and was not a Producer of the film. Therefore, having all these facts and knowledge, the plaintiffs have filed false suit just to harass the defendants for causing a loss to the plaintiffs. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit. 7. Further, it is the contention of the defendants that the KFCC was not made as a party in the suit. Therefore, the suit is hit by non-joinder of necessary parties. The said "Paraspara Odambadike Patra" was executed in the office of the KFCC and the office bearers of the KFCC and therefore, the plaintiffs had full knowledge regarding all the transactions and plaintiff No.2 herself has handed over the hard disk containing full movie to the defendants. Therefore, now at this stage, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is nothing but causing harassment to the defendants and considering all the aspects, the Trial Court has rightly vacated the interim order of injunction. Therefore, submitted that there is no need to cause interference in the order passed by the Trial Court and thus prays to enable defendants to release the movie. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9298 MFA No. 1404 of 2025 8. Initially, the Trial Court has granted an exparte order of temporary injunction but later on has not made absolute and the said interim order was vacated by the Trial Court, thereby dismissed I.A.No.1 of 2025 filed by the plaintiffs. Thus, being aggrieved by this, the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal. 9. The Trial Court assigned reasons that claim of relief of plaintiffs is compensated under money, which does not require further stay of releasing the movie. Further, defendant No.2 prima-facie shows that they have made part payment of more than Rs.21 lakhs to late K.R.Guruprasad. Further, what are the plaintiffs have claimed that is required to be considered in full fledged trial. Further, assigned the reason that the plaintiffs does not prima-facie substantiate that there was a finance investment in the scheduled movie by K.R.Guruprasad. Therefore, on all these reasons, as the plaintiffs failed to show that the prima-facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiffs and if scheduled movie is not released, then it would cause irreparable injuries to the defendants. Therefore, the Trial Court has not made absolute of the exparte order of temporary injunction. Thus, vacated the exparte interim order of injunction by dismissing I.A.No.1 of 2025. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9298 MFA No. 1404 of 2025 10. Further assigned reason that defendant No.2 produced Caveat Petition No.646/2025 dated 01.02.2025 filed by the Producer of the movie i.e., defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 has filed the above said Caveat Petition against the plaintiff, who filed the suit as minor guardian of plaintiff No.1. The plaintiff No.2 has suppressed the fact before the Court. The relief of injunction is a discretionary and equity. Further, defendant No.2 has produced document of having GST registered certificate for the Ram Movies but at the same time, plaintiffs have not produced GST registered certificate of K.R.Guruprasad INC. Further, plaintiff No.2 has not denied the account number of K.R.Guruprasad to whose account an amount of Rs.21 lakhs was transferred to. Therefore, on all these reasons, though the plaintiffs made a prima-facie case, but if interim order continues then it will cause injury to the defendants. Therefore, has not continued exparte order of temporary injunction. Thus, dismissed I.A.No.1 of 2025. 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants submitted that the scheduled movie is a brainchild of K.R.Guruprasad and he has requested some investors to make investment in the film and accordingly, there are 65 investors - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9298 MFA No. 1404 of 2025 to the film and among them defendant Nos.1 and 2 are major investors. When the film was about to complete, at that time, late K.R.Guruprasad died. Thereafter, the film was registered in the banner of “K.R.Guruprasad INC” and registered before the KFCC and therefore, after death of late K.R.Guruprasad, the plaintiffs have title, right and claim over the scheduled movie. But the defendants by defrauding the plaintiffs have got created one "Paraspara Odambadike Patra" behind the back of the plaintiffs and got created the same so as to get transfer of banner from “K.R.Guruprasad INC” to “Ram movies” belonging to defendants in the office of the KFCC. Therefore, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted and if movie is released, then the plaintiffs would be answerable to other investors and the plaintiffs will not be in a position to make claim against the defendants and in this way the plaintiffs will be put to irreparable injury and loss. 12. Further submitted that the plaintiffs have prima-facie case that undisputedly, initially, the scheduled movie was registered under the banner of “K.R.Guruprasad INC” before the KFCC. Therefore, it prima-facie shows that the plaintiffs are also having right, interest, title over the schedule movie and - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:9298 MFA No. 1404 of 2025 when this being the prima-facie case and balance of convenience and also if the movie is released, then it will cause irreparable injury and loss to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for the equitable relief in favour of plaintiffs. Hence, prays to allow the appeal. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendants submitted that late K.R. Guruprasad was the only Director and Actor in the schedule movie, but not a Producer, and had not invested any amount. Further, submitted that defendant Nos.1 and 2 had paid amount of Rs.21,00,000/- to plaintiff No.2 as part payment for the late K.R. Guruprasad during his lifetime and that is acknowledged by the plaintiffs also. Further, the defendants’ banner namely “Ram movies” was registered under the GST and has GST registered certificate. Whereas, the “Guruprasad INC” did not have a GST registered certificate which belies the fact that late K.R. Guruprasad was the Investor and Producer of the film. Further, submitted that prima-facie the plaintiffs’ fails to show who the other investors were as claimed that there are 65 investors. Further, plaintiffs No.2 had handed over the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:9298 MFA No. 1404 of 2025 hard disk to the defendants and also consented to transfer the name of banner from “Guruprasad INC” to the defendants’ “Ram movies”. Thus, in all consciousness, the plaintiffs had executed “Paraspara Odambadike Patra” before the KFCC. Therefore, in this regard, KFCC is necessary party in the suit. Therefore, the suit is hit by non-joinder of necessary parties. Further, submitted the fact that the hard disk raid was with the defendants, prima-facie proves the fact that plaintiff No.2 had not handed over the hard disk raid after execution of “Paraspara Odambadike Patra”. Therefore, plaintiff No.2 had validly and genuinely executed “Paraspara Odambadike Patra”, hence, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is maintainable. Further, the plaintiffs had suppressed many material facts before the Trial Court. One among them is that, though, defendant No.2 has filed Caveat Petition, the plaintiffs by not mentioning the name and address correctly, managed not to attach the Caveat Petition along with the suit and obtained an ex-parte order of injunction by misleading the Court. Therefore, it was considered by the Trial Court, thus vacated the interim order - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:9298 MFA No. 1404 of 2025 and allowed I.A.No.1 in their favour, which requires no interference. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 14. After hearing learned counsels appearing for both the parties and perusing the material placed on records, the points that would arise for my consideration are as follows: i. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiffs prove that there is prima-facie case in favour of plaintiff No.2? ii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiffs prove that balance of convenience is in favour of plaintiff No.2? iii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, if interim order of temporary injunction is not granted, then would it cause irreparable injury and loss to the plaintiffs? iv. What order? All the above points are interlinked each other, and therefore, they are taken up for common consideration. 15. In the present case, the defendants have not disputed the fact that late K.R. Guruprasad earned name in - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:9298 MFA No. 1404 of 2025 the Karnataka Film Industry by directing many movies, as stated in the plaint. The defendants have also not disputed that late K.R. Guruprasad had registered the movie “Eddelo Manjunatha–2” under the banner “Guruprasad INC”. 16. It is the case of the plaintiffs that late K.R. Guruprasad was not only one of the Producer and Investor in the movie, but also director, actor, story writer, lyrics writer, dialogue writer and screen player. 17. It is the claim of the defendants that they have also invested in the schedule film. When the film was about to complete, the Producer had stated that 90% of the shooting was completed and at that time, K.R. Guruprasad died. 18. It is the case of the defendants that later on they have invested an additional sum of Rs.50,00,000/- to complete the movie, including re-recording and dubbing and were preparing to release it. In this interregnum period, the plaintiffs have filed the suit. According to the defendants, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is with an ulterior motive and - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:9298 MFA No. 1404 of 2025 mala fide intention just to harass the defendants to incur loss. But at the same time, it is the case of the plaintiffs that there are 65 investors in the film and among them defendant Nos.1 and 2 are major investors. The plaintiffs claim that, if the film is released, they will not receive any profit or share of the earnings. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not able to answer other investors and it causes irreparable loss or injury to the plaintiffs. It is the case of plaintiffs that she has never executed the said “Paraspara Odambadike Patra” in favour of defendants and it is a created and concocted one. Thus, filed the suit for declaration for the reliefs as above claimed. 19. The plaintiffs are disputing execution of “Paraspara Odambadike Patra” dated 13.11.2024, whereas the defendants have stated that late K.R. Guruprasad had executed the said “Paraspara Odambadike Patra” on 13.11.2024 and he is the signatory to the said “Paraspara Odambadike Patra”. This is a contentious issue in the suit. Though, the defendants have contended that plaintiffs have executed “Paraspara Odambadike Patra” in the office of KFCC - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:9298 MFA No. 1404 of 2025 in presence of the office bearers, that would be the subject matter in the suit before the Trial Court for proving the said aspect, which requires evidence in full-fledged trial. Therefore, when issue has become a contentious issue proving before the Court of Law, after receiving evidence, then it cannot be said that the suit filed is vexatious one, so as to say that the plaintiffs do not have prima-facie case. The plaintiffs have stated that initially the movie was registered under the title name as “Eddelo Manjunath-2” under the banner “Guruprasad INC”. Therefore, the plaintiffs have made out a prima-facie case that late K.R. Guruprasad was the Producer and Investor in the film. If the defendants had fully invested the amount, then the film would have been registered under the banner of “Ram Movies” of the defendants. This shows the prima-facie case of the plaintiffs as it has become contentious issue which has to be trialed before the Trial Court. 20. Whether, “Paraspara Odambadike Patra” is executed or not, is the question to be considered before the Trial Court in a full-fledged trial. The plaintiffs do not have a - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:9298 MFA No. 1404 of 2025 dispute against the KFCC, therefore, the KFCC may not be the necessary party. At most, the office bearers of KFCC may be the acknowledged witness in proving or disproving the “Paraspara Odambadike Patra”. When, the above stated prima-facie case is shown by the plaintiffs that K.R. Guruprasad might also have been one of the producer and investor and the titled film was registered under the banner “Guruprasad INC”, then there is balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiffs beside prima-facie. 21. Under the principles of grant of an order of injunction as above stated, the factors have to be considered as prayed above. The decision, whether or not to grant interim injunction, has to be taken, at a time when the existence of the legal right assailed by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and remain uncertain till they are established at the trial on evidence. Relief by way of interim injunction is granted to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff during the period before that uncertainty could be resolved. The object of interim injunction is to protect plaintiff against injury by - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:9298 MFA No. 1404 of 2025 violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. The need for such protection has, however, to be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from preventing him exercising legal right for which he could not adequately be compensated. The Court must weigh the need of interim injunction and determine where balance of convenience lies in order to protect plaintiff, while granting an interim injunction in his favour. 22. Upon considering the principle of equitable relief and grant of interim injunction, which is discretionary in nature, but exercising discretion and equity must be under the sound principle of law. Here applying these principles, the plaintiffs have prima-facie shown that the film was initially registered under the banner “Guruprasad INC”. It is the case of the plaintiffs that because the late K.R. Guruprasad was not only being an actor, director, story writer, screen player, lyrics writer and script writer, he was also investor and producer in creating the film, that was got - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:9298 MFA No. 1404 of 2025 registered under the banner of “Guruprasad INC”. Had the defendants been exclusive investors and producers and K.R. Guruprasad was not Producer, then they should not have allowed to register the title under the banner of “Guruprasad INC”, but would have been under the banner of the defendants as “Ram Movies”, but it was not done. This makes prima-facie case of the plaintiffs to consider in the suit as it has contentious issue. The defendants might have paid some amount to late K.R. Guruprasad, and according to the plaintiffs, it is a part payment towards Direction and for Acting. It is allegation that late K.R. Guruprasad had invested being Producer. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.2 has also claimed in view of the profit to be earned by the movie. Therefore, this has become contentious issue regarding what payment made to late K.R. Guruprasad for direction and acting in the film, but the remaining question is to be considered as to whether K.R. Guruprasad is Producer and Investor in the film. Therefore, this makes balance of convenience in favour of plaintiffs and if the movie is released, then the plaintiffs would not have - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:9298 MFA No. 1404 of 2025 control over the movie, and they would suffer irreparable loss and injury. Who are the other investors is a matter to be considered during full-fledged trial. 23. Admittedly, the film was directed by late K.R. Guruprasad, who also played a supporting role in its creation. At the cost of repetition, the movie was registered under the banner “Guruprasad INC”. Therefore, considering all these factors, the plaintiffs have made out prima-facie case and balance of convenience is in their favour. If the interim order of injunction is not granted, then the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss and injury. This compels the Court to grant an order of interim injunction by allowing the appeal. 24. Though, the defendants have taken the contention that the plaintiffs have suppressed the facts regarding Caveat Petition filed by the defendants, though, initially the Trial Court might have granted interim order, later on, after hearing the defendants, has passed order. In what way, they suppressed the facts, is not fully made out - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:9298 MFA No. 1404 of 2025 by the trial Court. It is just observed by the trial Court that the scrutiny branch has made an endorsement in this regard in the order sheet as the plaintiffs have not mentioned full name and address of defendant No.1. But in what way, the plaintiffs suppressed the facts in this regard, is not shown prima-facie by the defendants. 25. Therefore, upon considering the above aspects, when the suit involves contentious issues that require a full- pledged trial and the plaintiffs have shown prima-facie case as above stated. Thus, if interim order is not granted, then the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss and injury. In such an event, there might be some delay in releasing the movie, but it is not perishable goods and it can be preserved, which would not cause much loss to the defendants. However, once the movie is released under the defendants’ banner “Ram Movies”, then the plaintiffs would lose all title and interest over the movie. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to the equitable relief of temporary injunction. Accordingly, I answer points No.I to IV in Affirmative. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:9298 MFA No. 1404 of 2025
Decision
26. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The order dated 25.02.2025 passed in OS.No.1221/2025 by the Court of XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 03), is hereby set aside. iii. The interim order of temporary injunction is granted restraining respondents/defendants and the their representatives, associates and assignees from releasing schedule movie “Eddelu Manjunatha- 2” till disposal of the suit. iv. The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 17.03.2025 without expecting further notice from the Trial Court. v. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible not more than nine months from the date of 17.03.2025. vi. Both the plaintiffs and defendants shall co-operate with the trial Court for early disposal of the suit, within an outer limit of nine months. vii. If any party in the suit seeks unnecessary adjournment without reasons then the Trial - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:9298 MFA No. 1404 of 2025 Court is at liberty to impose cost on the party, who seeks unnecessary adjournment. viii. The observations made above are only for considering the application for grant of temporary injunction, but shall not be considered on merits until deciding the suit. ix. No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE BH: para 1 to 12 SRA: para 13 to end List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1