Casa Zen, Shantiniketan Hsg Soc, Air-India, Colony, Yari v. Chandrabhan Singh Rathore, President District Bar

Judgment

1. Chandrabhan Singh Rathore, President District Bar Association Ajmer ----Respondent/Plaintiff

4. Divisional Rail Manager, DRM Office, Ajmer State Government, Through District Collector, Ajmer SHO Police Station, Civil Lines, Ajmer ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Agarwal, senior advocate with Ms. Purvi Mathur, Mr. Kushagra Sharma, Ms. Yaadvi Dhawan, Ms. Snehima Jauhari and Mr. Adhiraj Modi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kapoor Mr. Nitin Sharma, through VC [2025:RJ-JP:22891] (2 of 19) [CR-217/2024] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 30/05/2025 REPORTABLE

1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioners Subhash Kapoor, Akshay Kumar Bhatia and Arshad Warsi aggrieved from order dated 27.05.2024 in civil suit No.44/2024, [(CIS) 157/2024] passed by learned Civil Judge, Ajmer City (north), Ajmer whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 C.P.C. dated 10.05.2024 filed by present petitioners

defendant Nos. 1 to 3 was dismissed.

2. Learned senior advocate while relying upon grounds of revision petition submitted that petitioners are engaged in cinematographic work titled as “Jolly LLB-3” and as part of production schedule, they decided to have shooting in the premises of DRM Office, Ajmer from 25.04.2024 to 10.05.2024 after procuring necessary permissions and approval. He further submitted that respondent No.1 plaintiff has filed a civil suit for injunction on untenable grounds particularly on apprehension that the content of script is potentially defamatory in nature and prejudicial to the reputation of lawyers and Judges. He further submitted that all kind of cinematographic activity is regulated by the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act of 1952’) which provides for constitution and regulatory network of Film Certification Board to examine any documentary or film or advertisement and also to issue a Certificate for exhibition. He further submitted that the Act of 1952 is itself a Code which provides for redressal of grievances and appellate authority to [2025:RJ-JP:22891] (3 of 19) [CR-217/2024] aggrieved persons. He further submitted that petitioners are producer/actor/maker of films in commercial nature and they are already incurring expenses of crores of rupees for commercial work. He also submitted that in case, either the project is abandoned or stalled for any reason, then the petitioners have to incur huge losses resulting in financial bankruptcy. He further submitted that at present, the film is in production stage and before being submitted to the Board under the Act of 1952, no part is made available to public, therefore the plaintiff has filed a suit at very pre-mature stage. He further submitted that neither there is any cause of action nor the suit is maintainable before a Civil Court and same is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) of CPC.

3. Learned Senior Advocate has further placed reliance upon judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Ramisetty Venkatanna Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb and Ors 2023 SCC Online SC 521, Eldeco Housing and Industries Ltd. Vs. Ashok Vidyarthi 2023 SCC Online SC 1612, T. Arvindanam Vs. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467, Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhansai (2020) SCC Online 563, Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs. Syed Jalal (2017) 13 SCC 174, KUM. Geetha, D/o Late Krishna and Ors. Vs. Nanjundasyamy and Ors. (SLP (C) No.8147/2016), Om Prakash Srivastava Vs. Union of India (2006) 6 SCC 207, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable Vs. Asstt. Charity Commr. (2004) 3 SCC 137, ITC Ltd. Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate (1998) 2 SCC 70, Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 Suppl SCC 315 and Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Machado [2025:RJ-JP:22891] (4 of 19) [CR-217/2024] Brothers and Ors. (2004) 11 SCC 168 and submitted that if a suit is filed without accrual of any cause of action or at pre-mature stage, then same is liable to be rejected. He also submitted the trial court is duty bound to consider the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Co-ordinate Benches of this Court to decide the objections of petitiners but it has failed in its duties to decide the application.

4. He further placed reliance upon judgment in case of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and Ors. Vs. Netlfix Entertainment Services India LLP and Ors. (Delhi High Court CS(OS) No.546/2024), Dr. L. Ramachandran Vs. K. Ramesh (Madras High Court SCC (2015) 4 LW 585), Rushab Ship International LLC and Ors. Vs Bunkers Onboard the Ship M.V. African Eagle Others No. 1591 of 2013 (Bombay High Court (2014) 4 Bom CR 269), Ashutosh Dube Vs. Netflix, Inc. and Ors. (Delhi High Court (2020) 269 DLT 271) and Akshay Kumar Vs. State (Rajasthan High Court 2021 SCC Online Raj 4262) and submitted that an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is required to be decided at earliest so that the petitioners defendants may not face rigor of trial.

5. Learned Senior Advocate further placed reliance upon judgments in cases of Babuji Rawji Shah Vs. Hussain Zaidi 2022 SCC Online SC 1892, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs, Sanjay Leela Bhansali (2018) 1 SCC 770, Nachiketa Walhekar Vs. Central Board of Film Certification (2018) 1 SCC 778, Anand Bazaar Patrika (P) ITD. And Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and Anr. (2005) 2 CCR 593 and G. Narsimhan, G. Kasturi [2025:RJ-JP:22891] (5 of 19) [CR-217/2024] and Gopalan Ors. Vs. T.V. Chokkappa (1972) 2 SCC 680 and submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the issue of defamation under the Indian law and issued certain guidelines to consider the case of defamation. He further submitted that from the pleadings in the plaint, no case of defamation is made out, therefore the trial court has committed serious error while registering a plaint.

6. Learned senior advocate has further referred judgments in case of Shilpesh Chaudhary and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (Delhi High Court (2013) 199 DLT (CN B) 10 (DB), Smt. Aruna Asaf Ali and Ors. Vs. Purna Narayan Sinha (Gauhati High Court 1983 SCC online Gau 35) and Government Advocate Vs. Gopal Bandhu (Patna High Court) 1922 Cri. LJ 433) and submitted that from bare reading of plaint, no case for defamation is made out and the plaintiff has filed a suit without disclosing a cause of action. He further submitted that the suit is not only filed at pre-mature level but same is barred under the law in view of the Act of 1952.

7. Learned senior advocate has referred order dated

04.08.2021 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.6165/2017 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court wherein a criminal proceeding instituted against one of the petitioner Akshay Kumar was quashed. He submitted that the trial court has not only ignored the principle of law to decide an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC but it has continued a futile suit, which was required to be thrown out without wastage of single minute.

8. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsels for plaintiff respondent No.1 and he submitted that on the basis of [2025:RJ-JP:22891] (6 of 19) [CR-217/2024] cause of action accrued to the plaintiff, a civil suit was filed before the civil court and same is maintainable as the suit is not barred by any law. He further submitted that in earlier films produced by same set of petitioners, the lawyers and Judges were not only defamed but also they were shown as tool of entertainment. He further submitted that the court of law is established under the Constitution of India and lawyers are officers of the court and no one is authorized to defame either the lawyers or the Judges. Learned counsel further submitted that though shooting schedule in Ajmer is over but still the film is not released and now plaintiff is praying that film should not be released before taking all necessary steps to prevent possible defamation of lawyers and Judges. He further referred Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and submitted that a reasonable restriction can be placed even under the Constitution of India on right of expression and if petitioners are directed to submit a copy of script to the Court before releasing the film, then nothing is going to harm the petitioners. He also submitted that while filing a civil suit, the plaintiff is required to show a cause of action and in para Nos. 10 to 12, they have mentioned cause of action accrued to them and on the basis of this cause of action, instant suit was filed before the trial court. At last, he submitted that the objections raised by the petitioners defendants are mixed question of fact and law and same can be decided after framing issues and recording of evidence but a plaint cannot be rejected on the grounds as mentioned by petitioners herein.

9. Heard learned Senior Advocate for petitioners and learned counsels for respondent. Perused the material placed on record. [2025:RJ-JP:22891] (7 of 19) [CR-217/2024] Also considered judgments as referred by learned Senior Advocate for petitioners.

10. The facts giving rise to present petition under Section 115 CPC are that the petitioners are producing an upcoming film titled as “Jolly LLB-3” and the schedule of shooting was fixed at the premises of Divisional Railway Manager (DRM), Ajmer from

25.04.2024 to 10.05.2024. After acquiring knowledge about shooting of said film by petitioners a civil suit No.44/2024 was filed for injunction before learned Civil Judge for seeking following relief: अ वादी के प्ቌ मे व ्ቚति(cid:13)वादीगण के तिवरू्ቍ इस आशय की ्ቝायी ति(cid:24)षेधा्ሺा पारि(cid:29)(cid:13) की जावे तिक ्ቚति(cid:13)वादीगण ति(cid:31)्በ मेकस!, ति(cid:31)्በ के ति(cid:24)मा!(cid:13)ा, ति(cid:24)देशक, अति"(cid:24)े(cid:13)ा व काम क(cid:29) (cid:29)हे (cid:13)माम यूति(cid:24)ट को इस सबंध मे ति(cid:24)द)शितिश(cid:13) तिकया जावे तिक वह शुतिटंग में ति(cid:31)्በाएं जा(cid:24)े वाले (cid:13)माम दृ्ቦो डायलोगो मे ्቗ायालय की गरि(cid:29)मा के साथ साथ अतिधव्ሹाओ व ्቗ायाधीशो की गरि(cid:29)मा को ठे स (cid:24)ही पहुंचाये। इस आशय की ब वादी के प्ቌ मे व ्ቚति(cid:13)वादीगण के तिवरू्ቍ इस आशय की ्ቝायी ति(cid:24)षेधा्ሺा पारि(cid:29)(cid:13) की जावे तिक ्ቚति(cid:13)वादीगण ति(cid:31)्በ मेकस!, ति(cid:31)्በ के ति(cid:24)मा!(cid:13)ा, ति(cid:24)देशक, अति"(cid:24)े(cid:13)ा का सतिह(cid:13) डी.आ(cid:29).एम में काम क(cid:29)(cid:24)े वाले (cid:13)माम अतिधकारि(cid:29)यो, कम!चारि(cid:29)यो, एजे्ቇ असाई(cid:24)ीज स"ी को पाबंद (cid:31)(cid:29)माया जावे तिक वह अतिधव्ሹा सतिह(cid:13) डी.आ(cid:29).एम आति(cid:31)स मे साव!जाति(cid:24)क काय! से जा(cid:24)े वाले आमज(cid:24) को ्ቚवेश हे(cid:13)ु काया!लय मे (cid:24)ही (cid:29)ोके औ(cid:29) काया!लय में साव!जाति(cid:24)क रूप से आम तिद(cid:24) की (cid:13)(cid:29)ह ्ቚवेश क(cid:29)(cid:24)े तिदया जावे। स वादी के प्ቌ मे व ्ቚति(cid:13)वादीगण के तिवरू्ቍ इस आशय की [2025:RJ-JP:22891] (8 of 19) [CR-217/2024] ्ቝायी ति(cid:24)षेधा्ሺा पारि(cid:29)(cid:13) की जावे तिक ्ቚति(cid:13)वादीगण ति(cid:31)्በ मेकस!, ति(cid:31)्በ के ति(cid:24)मा!(cid:13)ा, ति(cid:24)देशक, अति"(cid:24)े(cid:13)ा ्ቛा(cid:29)ा (cid:13)ैया(cid:29) की गयी ኚ᭽ी्቉ को ्቗ायालय मे पेश क(cid:29) पूण! सं(cid:13)ुतिA के प्ቐा(cid:13) ही ्቗ायालय ्ቛा(cid:29)ा अ(cid:24)ुम(cid:13) तिकये जा(cid:24)े प(cid:29) ही ति(cid:31)्በ के दृ्ቦो व डायलोग को ति(cid:31)्በाएं ओ(cid:29) मा(cid:24)(cid:24)ीय ्቗ायालय के अंति(cid:13)म आदेश (cid:13)क ति(cid:31)्በ को रि(cid:29)लीज क(cid:29)(cid:24)े प(cid:29) "ी (cid:29)ोक लगायी जावे। द वाद ्ቤय तिदलाया तिदलाया जावे व अ्቗ अ(cid:24)ु(cid:13)ोष जो मा(cid:24)(cid:24)ीय ्቗ायालय वाद प्ቔ की परि(cid:29)ቝኌ्ቝति(cid:13)यो को म्ቖ(cid:24)ज(cid:29) (cid:29)ख(cid:13)े हुए उतिच(cid:13) समझे वादी को तिदलाया जावे।

11. During pendency of this civil suit, petitioners (defendant Nos. 1 to 3) have filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC primarily on the ground that neither a cause of action has accrued nor a suit is maintainable before the civil court as same is barred by law, which was dismissed by the trial court on 27.05.2024. Simultaneously another application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed by defendant No.4 (respondent No.2 herein) and same was also dismissed on 27.05.2024 but no revision petition is filed by respondent No.4. The facts clearly indicated that at DRM Office, Ajmer shooting was scheduled after obtaining necessary permission and approval.

12. A perusal of relief claimed by petitioners clearly indicated that no relief is claimed to abandon or stop shooting in DRM Office rather relief was claimed not to cause hindrance or obstruction in movement of general public including staff and lawyers. Similarly an injunction is sought about content of the script on apprehension of possible defamatory content, prejudicial to reputation and image of Bar and Bench. A final relief is claimed as [2025:RJ-JP:22891] (9 of 19) [CR-217/2024] a solution to prayer in previous para to direct petitioners to submit a script before the court and prior approval of court so as to release the film. Rationale behind provision under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC

13. Having considered the plaint and relief, we are dealing instant revision petition, filed after dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Order VII Rule 11 CPC deals with the grounds for rejection of plaint aiming to prevent frivolous or defective suits. The provision enables the Court to reject a plaint, if certain conditions are satisfied. The provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is reproduced as under:- Rejection of plaint— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:— (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law : (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provision of rule 9: “Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature for correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the [2025:RJ-JP:22891] (10 of 19) [CR-217/2024] Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.”

14. In case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC (1) 467, Hon’ble Supreme Court while examining the aforesaid provision has held that the trial court must remember that if on a meaningful and not a formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party under Order X of the Code.

15. The object of the said provision is further considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner, (2004) 3 SCC 137, and in Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510, and held that no court shall permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in a suit in case the suit does not disclose a cause of action or barred by any law or law of limitation.

16. In case of Saleem Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557 that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power at any stage of the suit i.e. before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) [2025:RJ-JP:22891] (11 of 19) [CR-217/2024] of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage.

17. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dahibhen Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRs and Ors. 2020 SCC Online (SC) 562 while dealing with an appeal against an order allowing rejection of a suit at the threshold, had occasion to consider various precedents to discuss the intent under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that if no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint, or if the suit is barred by law, court would not permit protraction of the proceedings and it would be necessary to put an end to the shame litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted.

18. After placing reliance upon Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 SCC (SUPP) 315, Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the entire purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation, which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time and space of the Courts. The power on the Court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 CPC are required to be strictly adhered to.

19. Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with such an application seeking rejection of a plaint clarified that while determining any application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court should restrict itself to the plaint and should not go into the detail facts as provided under the written statement or even in the application filed for rejection of plaint. While scrutinizing the [2025:RJ-JP:22891] (12 of 19) [CR-217/2024] averments in the plaint, the Court can read documents annexed and relied upon in the plaint.

20. Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC provides that a plaint should be rejected if the suit is barred by any law. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramisetty Venkatanna Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb 2023 INSC 458 has observed that plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a)(d) of CPC if it is vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by law.

21. In case of Elfeco Housing and Industries Ltd. Vs. Ashok Vidyarthi (supra) Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs. Syed Jalal (supra), KUM. Geetha, D/o Late Krishna and Ors. Vs. Nanjundasyamy and Ors (Supra) and Om Prakash Srivastava Vs. Union of India (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and held that while considering application, the court has to strictly adhere to averment in plaint and if no cause of action is disclosed from overall facts and circumstances of the case and is barred by law then suit has to be rejected. In case of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Machado Brothers and Ors. (supra) even considering a subsequent event, it renders suit infructuous. The plaint was rejected under Section 151 CPC.

22. Having considered the legal position as referred hereinabove, it is crystal clear that a plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 CPC can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on grounds mentioned therein but while considering the application, the Court can only look at plaint and the documents annexed with the plaint or relied upon in plaint which means that a meaningful reading of plaint, [2025:RJ-JP:22891] (13 of 19) [CR-217/2024] document annexed or relied by plaintiff are required to be considered while considering application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. A plaint which does not disclose a cause of action or which is barred by law, which includes law of limitation can be dismissed at any stage before pronouncement of judgment. The legal position shows that a duty conferred upon the Court and can be exercised on application of any of the defendant or suo moto by the Court itself so as to save precious judicial time.

23. Aforesaid principles of law suggest that law empowers the Court to reject a suit, if it fulfills the condition as prescribed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC but the only condition is that the Court cannot look into defence or averment made in either the written statement or in application itself. While considering an application, the Court cannot presume that the objection raised about maintainability of suit is a mixed question of facts and law. If law is clear that when a suit appears to be barred by law then the plaint is necessarily be rejected at very threshold. B ar of Jurisdiction of Court

24. Section 9 of CPC provides that the Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature except suit of which cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred. It is well-settled that consent of parties cannot confer nor take away jurisdiction of any Court which means if a Civil Court has jurisdiction neither acquiescence nor waiver or estoppel can create the same.

25. In case of A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak & Anr. AIR 1988 SC 1531, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the power of Court or jurisdiction is legislative in character. In case of Chief [2025:RJ-JP:22891] (14 of 19) [CR-217/2024] Engineer, Hydel Project & Ors vs Ravinder Nath & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 350, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a decree passed without jurisdiction is nullity and its invalidity can be set up even at the stage of execution. It is essentially based on a principle “coram non judice”. In case of Kiran Singh And Others vs Chaman Paswan And Others AIR 1954 SC 340 has held that a defect of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and such a basic and fundamental defect cannot be cured by consent of the parties. Conversely, if a Court to decide a dispute, the same cannot be taken away or ousted by consent of the parties. In case of Abdulla Bin Ali Vs. Gullapa & Ors. (1985) 2 SCC 54, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction does not depend upon the defence taken by the defendants in the written statement. A similar view was expressed in case of Bank of Baroda vs Moti Bhai And Ors. (1985) 1 SCC 475 and held that on the question of jurisdiction, one must always have regard to the substance of the matter and not to the form of the suit.

26. In view of legal position about jurisdiction of civil Court, it is apparently clear that in case suit is expressly or impliedly barred then the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and continue the civil suit. In case a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain or continue a civil suit then a plaint is required to be rejected under Order VII of Rule 11(d) of CPC. Application of Law in the instant case

27. A perusal of plaint, it is apparent that plaintiff has filed a suit on the basis of cause of action accrued on 29.04.2024 when shooting of film “Jolly LLB-3” has commenced and on the basis of [2025:RJ-JP:22891] (15 of 19) [CR-217/2024] said cause of action, a suit was filed on 06.05.2024. The Para Nos.10, 11 and 12 indicate concern of plaintiff and we are reproducing the same as under: “10. यह तिक ्ቚति(cid:13)वादी/अ्ቚाथJ शुतिटंग मेकस! को यह ति(cid:24)द)श तिदया जा(cid:24)ा "ी आव्ብक है तिक तिजस ति(cid:31)्በ की शुतिटंग मु्ቅ रूप से वकीलो, ्቗ायपातिलका, ्቗ायाधीश को (cid:31)ोकस क(cid:29) (cid:13)ैया(cid:29) की जा (cid:29)ही है उसके संबंध मे "ाषा मया!दा ्቗ायपातिलका की छतिव को पूण! रूप से ्ቖा(cid:24) (cid:29)खा जा(cid:24)ा अपेति्ቌ(cid:13) है तिजसके तिलए ्ቚति(cid:13)वादी/ अ्ቚाथJ को ति(cid:24)षेधा्ሺा से पाबंद (cid:31)(cid:29)माया जा(cid:24)ा आव्ብक है। 11. यह तिक पूव! मे "ी जॉली एल.एल.बी., जॉली एल.एल.बी.2 मूवी ्ቚति(cid:13)वादी/अ्ቚाथJ शुतिटंग मेकस! ्ቛा(cid:29)ा पद) प(cid:29) उ(cid:13)ा(cid:29)क(cid:29) आमज(cid:24) के तिलए ब(cid:24)ायी गयी है प(cid:29)्ቌु उसमे कई ऐसे दृ्ቦ व डायलोग दशा!ये गये है तिजससे वकीलो ्቗ायपातिलका व ्቗ायधीश की छतिव आमज(cid:24) के बीच मे गल(cid:13) (cid:13)(cid:29)ीके से ्ቚदतिश!(cid:13) की गयी है जो क(cid:13)ई उतिच(cid:13) मु(cid:24)ातिस(cid:31) व ्቗ायसंग(cid:13) (cid:24)ही है ऐसे मे ्ቚति(cid:13)वादी/अ्ቚाथJ को पाबंद (cid:31)(cid:29)माया जा(cid:24)ा आव्ብक है तिक ्቗ायपातिलका के अ(cid:24)ुरूप ही ति(cid:31)्በ के डायलोग व दृ्ቦ तिदखाये व ति(cid:31)्በाये जावे। 12. यह तिक ्ቚति(cid:13)वादी/ अ्ቚाथJ ्ቛा(cid:29)ा ति(cid:31)्በ मे तिक(cid:29)दा(cid:29) ति(cid:24)"ा(cid:24)े के तिलए अतिधव्ሹाओ की "ूतिमका के संबंध मे यतिद तिकसी ्ቚका(cid:29) की सहाय(cid:13)ा की आव्ብक(cid:13)ा हो(cid:13)ी (cid:13)ो उ्ቡे सीधा बा(cid:29) एसोतिसएश(cid:24) से स्ቘक! क(cid:29)(cid:24)ा चातिहये था औ(cid:29) अतिधव्ሹाओ के बीच अप(cid:24)ी बा(cid:13) (cid:29)खक(cid:29) ति(cid:31)्በ की शुतिटंग "ी की जा सक(cid:13)ी थी इसके तिलए तिजला बा(cid:29) एसोतिसएश(cid:24) अजमे(cid:29) मे ्ቝा(cid:24) औ(cid:29) अतिधव्ሹाओ का सहयोग पूण!(cid:13)या ्ቚदा(cid:24) तिकया जा सक(cid:13)ा था यतिद वे शुतिटंग के दौ(cid:29)ा(cid:24) अतिधव्ሹाओ ्቗ायपातिलका व ्቗ायाधीश की मया!दाओ को ्ቖा(cid:24) मे (cid:29)खक(cid:29) ति(cid:31)्በ का अंक(cid:24) क(cid:29)े औ(cid:29) क(cid:29)(cid:13)े (cid:13)ो इस सबंध मे उ्ቡे तिजला बा(cid:29) एसोतिसएश(cid:24) से स्ቘक! क(cid:29) अतिधव्ሹाओं की [2025:RJ-JP:22891] (16 of 19) [CR-217/2024] "ाव(cid:24)ाओ का ्ቖा(cid:24) (cid:29)ख(cid:24)ा "ी पाबंद (cid:31)(cid:29)माया जा(cid:24)ा अपेति्ቌ(cid:13) है।"

28. Aforesaid indicated that on the basis of two previous films, “Jolly LLB”, “Jolly LLB-2”, the plaintiff was apprehensive about use of defamatory and objectionable dialogues and language in the film by the film producer and the actors therefore a suit was filed to as to protect image and reputation of judicial institution, from possible defamation.

29. A film shooting was scheduled from 29.04.2024 to

13.05.2024 and suit was filed on 06.05.2024 wherein this application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed on 10.05.2024 and same was dismissed on 27.05.2024. Therefore in light of judgment in case of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Machado Brothers and Ors. (supra) relief with regard to para (B) about restriction and obstruction in movement in DRM Office has rendered infructuous, now relief pertains to para (A) and para (C) remains to be considered and we are considering accordingly.

30. The Cinematography Act, 1952 was enacted to make provision for a certificate of film for exhibition relating by means of cinematography. The Act provides for establishment of Central Board of Film Certification (hereinafter referred as “CBFC”), responsible for reviewing and classification of films before being released for exhibition. The Act also outlines the process for film certification and types of certificates that can be issued such as Universal (U), Universal with parental guidance (UA), Adult (A) and Special (S). The CBFC is responsible to review and certify film for public exhibition ensuring that they meet certain standards and [2025:RJ-JP:22891] (17 of 19) [CR-217/2024] suitable for viewing and then certificate was issued for exhibition. The Act also regulates for guidelines and standards for public screening. Aggrieved from any decision of CBFC there is a provision of appellate Tribunal to redress the grievance from a decision of CBFC.

31. Section 5B lays down principles for guidance in certification of films. It empowers CBFC not to grant any certificate when a film or any part of it is against the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relation with the Foreign State, public order, decency or morality or involves defamation or contempt of Court and likely to incite the commission of any offence. With ready reference we are reproducing Section 5B as under: “5B. (1) A film shall not be certified for public exhibition if, in the opinion of the authority competent to grant the certificate, the film or any part of it is against the friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of court or is likely to incite the commission of any offence. (2) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the Central Government may issue such directions as it may think fit setting out the principles which shall guide the authority competent to grant certificates under this Act in sanctioning films for public exhibition.”

32. Aforementioned provision is already available to redress grievances raised by the plaintiff. Despite the provision under Section 5B, if CBFC grants a certificate for exhibition of film which involves defamation or Contempt of Court, then the plaintiff has a [2025:RJ-JP:22891] (18 of 19) [CR-217/2024] right to approach the appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 5D of the Act of 1952. In case, the appellate Tribunal overrules the objection or dismiss the petition then revisional authority of Central Government can be invoked.

33. Section 7F of the Act of 1952 bars a suit or proceedings in respect of anything which is done in good faith or entitled to be done under the Act and same is reproduced as under: 7F. No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie against [the Central Government, the Tribunal, the Board], advisory panel or any officer or member of [the Central Government, the Tribunal, the Board or] advisory panel, as the case may be, in respect of anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act.

34. Though Section 7F does not bar institution of a civil suit to withhold release of any film but scheme of the Act of 1952 clearly provides for regulation of certification and exhibition and further for appeal and revisional jurisdiction.

35. Herein this case, though a suit is not expressly barred by law but the provision impliedly bar institution of a civil suit before completion of the process as mandated under the Act of 1952 in relation to production of any film. Herein, alleged cause of action about prayer clause (A) and (C) is premature. The film is at nebulous stage, which is at production stage, and we can say that “there’s many a slip between the cup and the lip”. After completing the film same has to undergo process as mandated under the Act of 1952 and without exercising the provision of law [2025:RJ-JP:22891] (19 of 19) [CR-217/2024] which was enacted to regulate certification and exhibition of film, no civil suit can be filed before any court so as to withhold production of film (art work) inciting the reasons of content to be defamatory or prejudicial to the interest of a community or a group of persons.

36. We are in a sovereign, socialist, secular democratic republic Country having goal to ensure justice, liberty, equality and fraternity to all its citizens. The Article 19 of the Constitution protects the freedom of speech and expression but it also includes reasonable restriction in cases provided under Section 5(b)(1) of the Act of 1952.

37. Having considered the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent on record that the suit is impliedly barred and a plaint is filed at premature stage without completion of the process as mandated under the Act of 1952, therefore, the plaint is liable to he rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a)(d). Thus the trial court has committed serious error while dismissing application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

38. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the instant revision petition is hereby allowed and impugned order dated 27.05.2024 is hereby set aside. As a result, application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by petitioners defendant Nos.1 to 3 dated 10.05.2024 is hereby allowed and civil suit No.44/2024 filed by respondent No.1 plaintiff is hereby rejected.

39. No order as to cost. PREETI VALECHA /96 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J