PRISM TV PVT. LTD. Vs. REKHA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though this writ petition is listed for orders, with the consent of learned Counsel on both sides, it is heard finally. The petitioner has assailed interim order dated 29-11-2013 passed by the Trial Court on I.A. No. I in O.S. No. 8654 of 2013 pending on the file of XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The suit is filed under Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957 seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against defendants and for rendering of accounts. The suit was filed on 28-11-2013 along with an application seeking an ad interim temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and their representatives from telecasting the serial 'Akka' on ETV Kannada channel on 2-12-2013 or in any other mode, pending disposal of the suit. The Trial Court passed an interim order on I.A. Nos. I and II on 29-11-2013 which was an ex parte interim injunction restraining the defendants, their men or agents or anybody else claiming through them from telecasting serial "Akka" on 1st defendant's channel on 2-12-2013 or in any other mode till filing of written statement and subject to compliance of Order 39, Rule 3(a) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The case was posted on 4-1-2013 on which another order was passed. That order is also challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) In the interregnum between the two orders, there were certain developments leading to the order dated 4-12-2013. With the permission of the Court that order was also sought to be assailed in this writ petition.

(3.) On 5-12-2013 this Court after noting the order dated 4-12-2013 passed by the Trial Court granted an ex parte order permitting the petitioner i.e. defendant 1 to telecast the serial "Akka" from 5-12-2013 till the next date of hearing i.e. today (18-12-2013). It was also ordered that telecast of the serial would not enable defendant 1/petitioner herein from claiming any equities whatsoever and that if the plaintiff/respondent 1 had any claim with regard to the telecast on these days then the respondent 1 was free to make such claim.