Oral Order:

1. Leave under Rule 147 of the High Court (Original Side) Rules 1980 is granted to the plaintiff. Respondents waive service.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. By this motion, the plaintiff seeks injunction restraining the defendants from infringing his copyright in the story, screen play and dialogs in the Hindi remake of the Tamil film "Ghajini".

4. Thedefendant no.1 wrote the story, screen play and dialogs for the Tamil film "Ghajini". According to the plaintiff, by an agreement dated 29th December 2004, the defendant no.1 by receiving a consideration of Rs.11 lakhs assigned to him the copyright in the story, screenplay and dialogs of the Tamil film "Ghajini" with a right to remake the film in Hindi language. In the month of November 2008 the plaintiff learnt that the defendant no.3 was making a remake of that film in Hindi in violation of the copy right of the plaintiff. He has, therefore, sought an injunction restraining the defendants from releasing the Hindi remake of the film "Ghajini" and/or infringing his copyright.

5. The defendant nos.1 and 3 have filed an affidavit denying the averments in the plaint. In the plaint, he has stated that though he had written the story of the original Tamil film "Ghajini" he had done it for M/s.Sri Sarvanna who was the owner of the copyright in the story, screenplay and the dialogs. He further denied having executed the alleged agreement dated 29th December 2004 as also having received Rs.11 lakhs in pursuance of the alleged agreement. He denied his signatures on the alleged agreement and receipt both dated 29th December 2004 and contended they were forged and fabricated.

.6. Thedefendant no.3 in his affidavit denied that plaintiff was the owner of the copyright of the story, screen play and dialogs of the original film "Ghajini" or that he had any right to remake it in Hindi. He has stated that the copyright vested in V. Sarvanna from whom he had acquired the right to remake the film in Hindi. He has further stated that he started advertising the film in February 2008 and various advertisements were released in different newspapers and media from February 2008 to December 2008. He produced copies of 9 advertisements published between period 27th February 2008 and October 2008 and copies of two advertisements published in the month of December 2008. He submitted that plaintiff was well aware and must be deemed to be aware that Hindi remake

.of the film was being produced. The plaintiff has come too late and has moved the Court at the last minute to stall the exhibition of the film and to extract money unlawfully.

7. Almost 15 years ago,in Shiv Kumar Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1993) 3 SCC 161, the Supreme Court has laid down the principles governing the grant of temporary injunction. In paragraph nos.30 and 31 of the decision, the Supreme Court has held that grant of interim injunction is not a matter of right and before any such order is passed, the court must be satisfied that a strong prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiff including on the question of maintainability of the suit and the balance of convenience. The plaintiff must further prove that refusal of an injunction would cause irreparable injury to him. Taking notice of the fact that on account of huge pendency of the cases in court, the court observed that once an interim order of injunction was passed, in many cases, such interim order would continue for months, if not years, and even if the order was vacated after long lapse of time, more damage and more serious injury would be caused to the defendant than the injury that would be caused to the plaintiff by refusing the injunction.

8. In Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation, (1995) 3 SCC 33, the Supreme Court has held that while exercising the discretionary power to grant an injunction, the court should adopt the procedure of calling upon the plaintiff to file a bond to the satisfaction of the