SAPNA SANGEETA DISTRIBUTORS INDORE Vs. CITY CABLE INDORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these two persons appearing for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that they do not have any cause to show so far as the admission of this petition is concerned. Therefore, this petition stands admitted and for the reasons stated hereunder this petition is being decided today finally, as a short question arises for determination which would be conveying guidelines to the subordinate Courts as to what should be the approach while dealing with urgent matters which have been filed during vacation for seeking urgent orders to meet out urgent needs.

(2.) This question is dealing with exhibition of film 'Bewi No. 1' which was to be exhibited in Sapna-Sangeeta Talkies owned by the petitioner who was entitled to exhibit it under an agreement and necessary certification from the Central Board of Film Certification of Govt. of India. The learned District Judge, Indore, while dealing with an urgent hearing application praying the District Court to exercise Civil Jurisdiction in summer vacation held that the said suit and application for injunction was not deserving to be urgently heard in vacation. The District Judge, Indore directed Shri Dalal, the counsel for the petitioner, to file the suit and application after the summer vacation.

(3.) Section 21 of M.P. Civil Courts Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for convenience) makes a provision by its sub-section (4) by providing that the District Judge may provide such arrangements as he may deem fit for disposal of urgent civil matters during vacation. It is a Rule of practise hardened into a Rule of Law and legal precedent that all the matters which have been filed during the vacation should be decided before the vacation ends. Of course a discretion has been given to the District Judge to make necessary arrangement for disposal of such urgent Civil works. A reasonable approach has to be taken for the purpose of judging as to whether a particular matter is urgent or otherwise and for that purpose the concerned Judge has to adopt third party dispassionate and objective approach. In the present case exhibition of 'Bewi No. 1' was either fetching a significant profit or if not permitted to exhibit was likely to cause significant loss to the petitioner who is in possession of prima facie right of exhibiting it in his Talkies, namely "Sapna-Sangeeta" and in the whole Cine Circuit of C.P. When the petitioner filed a suit for the purpose of seeking an injunction against all the concerned persons prohibiting them to exhibit the said Film in any manner publicly, it was the duty of the learned Judge to keep it in mind as to what was the possibility of profit or loss which was likely to be caused to the petitioner on account of unwarranted, unauthorised interference in his right of exhibition of that film, in cine circuit of C.P. Every interference in such right was likely to cause huge loss to the petitioner. Therefore, it was not proper on the part of the District Judge, Indore to ask the petitioner to file the said suit after the vacation and to press his application for injunction, as interim relief, after vacation.