( 1 ) THIS is an application by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking restraint order against the defendants from exhibiting publicly or privtely, selling, entering into film festivals, promoting, advertising, producing in any format or medium, wholly or prtially, the film "bandit Queen" in India or else where. Another prayer is made for appointment of a Receiver/court Commissioner to take custody and charge of the original negatives, intermediate negatives, positives in all gauges, magnetic audio tapes, mixed audio tapes, sales and publicity material relating to the film "bandit Queen".

( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiff on this application is that on 9. 9. 94 this Court directed the original version of the film as made and produced on a video cassette be filed within a week. In compliance of the same the cassette was filed by the defendants. Another order was made that day directing the defendants not to exhibit the film for public as well as private viewing in India. The parties have filed voluminous documents on record. Ms. Jaisingh at the outset has argued that the plaintiff has not been shown rough or final edited version of the film till date despite her repeated demands orally and in writing. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that though defendant no. 3 kept assuring the plaintiff that he would show her the film made on her life story but instead of showing the film to the plaintiff on 9. 8. 94 there was a private screening of the film bandit Queen at Siri Fort Auditorium, New Delhi. In the application the plaintiff has given names of some of the important persons who watched the screening of the said film. According to the plaintiff the film started with the legend "this is a true story". Msjaisingh has argued that exhibition of the film as made is in breach of right to privacy. She has further contended that apart from its being violaive of right to privacy of the plaintiff the defendant has no right to make the film and exhibit for public viewing as has been agreed to between the parties by virtue of the agreement dated 11. 5. 88. Agreement dated 11. 5. 88 is between Anancy Films Limited, i. e. defendant no. 5 and the plaintiff. The letter reads as under:-

"re: Documentary - The Chambal Valley This letter sets out the agreement we have reached and will, when signed by you, constitute a binding contract between us. 1. We intend (but do not undertake) to research make and produce a film relating to Indian Banditry and your role therein ("the Film") for exploitation on the television and in other media throughout the world. 2. You have written certain material concerning your life (all of such written material is herein together refrerred to as "the Writings ). 3. In consideration of our agreement hereby made to pay the sum of rupees one lakh (One Hundred Thousand) half payable on receipt of the Writings, half to be paid on the first day of principal photography, you hereby (i) Grant to us the sole and exclusive right to use and reproduce the Writings or any part or parts thereof in connection with and as part of cinematograph films (including the Film) and all allied rights for the full period of copyright including all renewals and extensions thereof and therafter as the same may be or become possible in perpetuity. (ii) Agree that we may cut or alter and adapt the Writings and use them alone or with other material and/or accompanied by narration and/or editorial comment. . . . . . . . . . "

( 3 ) THEREAFTER defendant no. 5 assigned the rights in the written material and diaries "the Writings" to Channel 4 by virtue of the arrangement between Channel 4 and Anancy Films Limited. Channel 4 is defendant no. 3. Ms. Jaisingh has argued that as per. the agreement defendants wanted to make a documentary on the Chambal Valley and banditry. In the agreement in paragraph I, it has been mentioned that what the defendants were to make and produce was a film re