LAWS(APH)-1990-2-31

G PRASAD Vs. P SAROJA

Decided On February 22, 1990
GARAPATI PRASAD Appellant
V/S
PARANANDI SAROJA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants are D-1 and D-3 in O.S. 1/90 Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The suit was Sled for permanent injunction restraining Doordarshan Kendra, Hyderabad represented by its Director (D-2 in the suit and R-2 herein) from telecasting extended 13-episodes of T.V. Serial "Hima Bindu" on the basis of the production made by D-l with the connivance of D-3 and D-4 without getting it written by the plaintiff and for costs. The plaintiff also filed I.A. 118/90 praying for temporary injunction in regard to the same. The lower court granted tamporary injunction as prayed for. It is assailed in this appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff is working as a teacher in a private school. At the instance of D-3, the plaintiff contributed a script to be telecast under the title "Hima Bindu". The said 13 episodes were telecast in T.V. serial from 2-11-88 to February, 1989. By letter dated 5-12-1988 D-3 requested D-2 to extend the telecast of "Hima Bindu" by atleast another 13 episodes. As per letter dated 21-12-88 D-2 informed D-3 that their proposal for extending the serial by another 13 episodes of "Hima Bindu" was accepted in principle. "D-3 was also advised to submit the script of all the 13 episodes of extension immediately and to bank four episodes in advance after getting approval of the context by their office".

(3.) By letter dated 6-2-89, the plaintiff informed D-2 that she came to know that the producers were planning to get extension of the story written by somebody else without her permission, and as the writer of the story she had got every right on the story as well as the title, and the involvement of other writer who wanted to continue her thirteen episodes with the same title is highly objectionable and hence D-2 was asked to intimate D-3 that unless she permits they had no right to meddle with story or title and she further requested D-2 to stop the telecast of the serial immediately until she informed them in regard to the same. She again addressed letters dated 31-7-1989 and 4-8-89 to D-2 not to telecast the extended episodes until she gives her consent.