The Court emphasized that the Plaintiff's gross delay in seeking relief precluded equity, and found no substantial similarity or evidence proving copyright infringement or passing off.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.

1. When the above-listed Suit and the Interim Application filed by the Plaintiff were called out today, Mr. Suryawanshi, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff, Mr.Bhadbhade, the Learned Counsel appearing for the 1^st Defendant, Mr. Soman, the Learned Counsel appearing for Defendant Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 and Mr. Mehta, the Learned Counsel appearing for the 7^th Defendant, on instruction submitted that their respective clients do not have any objections if this Bench hears the matter. They further submitted that their respective clients have instructed them to give an undertaking to the Court that no objection shall be raised by them at any time or in any proceedings. Accordingly, the statements made on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Defendants are accepted as an undertaking to this Court.

2. The Suit was filed on 10.10.2025, and the 1st Application was made by the Plaintiff seeking ad-interim reliefs on 16.10.2025, when the Court taking Intellectual Property (I.P.) assignment recused to hear and therefore, the Interim Application of the Plaintiff was heard by another Bench of this Court on 17.10.2025. On the statement of the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 5, directed the Defendants to provide screening of the film produced by the Defendants, without its background music to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with a screening of their film on 20.10.2025. After the screening, by a praecipe dated 23.10.2025, the Plaintiff sought urgent listing of the matter before the Vacation Court on 24.10.2025. Based on the statements made in the praecipe a circulation was granted to the Plaintiff, and the Interim Application was kept today for hearing of the Plaintiff's urgent ad-interim reliefs.

3. Mr. Suryawanshi, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff, submitted that after the screening of the Defendant's film, the Plaintiff has learnt about more substantial similarities between the Plaintiff’s film and the Defendant's film. Therefore, the Plaintiff wishes to amend the plaint to bring on record, inter alia, the similarities noticed by the Plaintiff in the Defendant’s film. He submitted that a copy of the draft amendments was served on all the Defendants today at 09.00 am. He submitted that the Plaintiff be allowed to carry out amendments to the plaint and the matter be kept for ad- interim reliefs on 27.10.2025. This request of the Plaintiff was vehemently opposed by all the Defendants. It was submitted on behalf of all the Defendants that the draft amendments of the Plaintiff be allowed today itself, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Defendants. Further, it was submitted on behalf of the Defendants that if the Plaintiff is seeking time on the ground that the Plaintiff would carry out amendments to the Plaint and thereafter, the Plaintiff shall make an application for an ad-interim, in that case, the Interim Application be listed after reopening. In response, Mr. Suryawanshi submitted that today the Senior Counsels appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff are not available and therefore, the matter be kept on 27.10.2025. This request of Mr. Suryawanshi was also opposed by the Defendants, and it was submitted that if the matter is moved based on urgency, then the Plaintiff should be ready to make an application for ad-interim reliefs. They further submitted that this is a matter in which the Defendants should be allowed to file a detailed reply, as the suit was filed and the application for ad-interim relief was made after a gross and inordinate delay. However, because the Plaintiff has sought circulation on the ground of urgency, the Defendants are ready and willing to defend the Plaintiff's application for an ad-interim relief today itself.

4. Mr. Suryawanshi submitted that in that case, the draft amendments should be allowed forthwith and the Plaintiff should be heard for ad-interim reliefs today itself.

5. Accordingly,