Important Point - The Plaintiffs will pay the costs quantified at Rs. 5 lakhs.

1. Not on board. Mentioned. Taken on board.

2. Mr Saboo for the Plaintiffs seeks urgent circulation of a Notice of Motion in this Suit. He says that there is urgency because the Defendants’ film Phillauri, alleged to be in violation of the Plaintiffs’ copyright in their 2013 Gujarati, Bhojpuri and Nepali film Mangal Phera, is slated for public theatrical release just a few day hence - this very Friday, 24th March 2017. He asks that the matter be taken up tomorrow or the day after.

3. At this stage when the matter is mentioned for circulation, I am not, of course, addressing the merits of the claim. I only address the question of urgency. The basis of the copyright infringement claim is the trailer of the Defendants’ film. The plaint itself acknowledges that the trailer was released over six weeks ago, if not more, on 6th February 2017 with an even then confirmed theatrical release date of 24th March 2017. This is so stated in paragraph 16 of the plaint, which then claims that the 1st Plaintiff’s attention was drawn to this trailer on 24th February 2017. That of course will be tested. It is not in dispute that on 28th February 2017 the Plaintiffs’ Advocate sent a notice to the Defendants. The 1st Defendant replied as early as 2nd March 2017 and then provided a more detailed response on 10th March 2017.

4. None of this explains why the Plaintiffs have waited till 21st March 2017 to move the suit. In fact, this filing is not even complete. No Notice of Motion is lodged with the registry. Mr Jagtiani who appears on notice says copies of the plaint, the draft Notice of Motion and of an unaffirmed affidavit in support were served at 7 pm last evening.

5. The effect of granting such a circulation application would be that I would have to set aside all other work, including part-heard and specially fixed matters, only to accommodate the Plaintiffs who have chosen to come this late, though they could well have moved earlier. This practice of parties claiming copyright infringement coming to Court at the eleventh hour and expecting Courts to drop all other work to listen to and decide their applications on a priority basis must be discouraged. In a given case, where the plaintiff had no prior knowledge an exception will of course always be made. But where it is shown, and especially where it is admitted, that the plaintiff knew several weeks in advance of the release of the film, I see no reason to grant priority. That would be an unconscionable indulgence.

6. Let me outline what granting such an application involves. If allowed, there will be an urgent hearing two days from now, on Thursday at the earliest, the day before the Defendants’ film releases. That hearing will take the better part of the day; most certainly a couple of hours. Both sides will want to argue the matter fully. Then I must dictate a judgment in Court. This must be transcribed that very evening. My staff, which work long hours - some commute two hours in one direction - must work late into the night to complete the transcription to deliver it to me for correction. Assuming I carry out those corrections in soft copy myself, as is my usual practice, that will take another several hours. All this only so that these Plaintiffs, who chose to come late though they could have come earlier, can have in their hands by 11:00 am on Friday morning a judgment complete in all respects. As I said, in a given case, with demonstrated urgency, yes, we do this, and we do. But to allow this in a case where the Plaintiffs have deliberately waited till the last minute is grossly unfair not only to the Court’s infrastructure and hard-pressed staff but to other litigants waiting their turn. The attempt is, clearly, to pressure the Defendants into making a statement of some kind or, worse yet, to pressure the Court into passing some hurried pro tem order for want of time with little or no assessment on merits, a wholly unfair advantage. A plaintiff who waits till the last minute must