SUBHASH KAPOOR Vs. CHANDRABHAN SINGH RATHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioners Subhash Kapoor, Akshay Kumar Bhatia and Arshad Warsi aggrieved from order dtd. 27/5/2024 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 Sec. 151 C.P.C. dtd. 10/5/2024 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 25/4/2024 to 10/5/2024 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 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) and (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 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.