JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. "He threw acid on my face, not on my dreams" - so said the valiant survivor of acid attack - Ms. Laxmi Agarwal. Her arduous and heroic journey since the time she was attacked at the young age of 15 is the subject matter of the cinematograph film 'CHHAPAAK'.

2. Director/Producer, Ms. Meghna Gulzar, who is Defendant No.1 in the present suit, has produced and directed cinematograph film 'CHHAPAAK', which was released yesterday i.e. on 10th January, 2020 across the country. The film relates to an important social cause i.e., the portrayal of women who are acid attack victims. It has been publicly acknowledged that the film was inspired by a real-life event which occurred in the case of an acid attack victim Ms. Laxmi Aggarwal - her emotional and legal journey. The film seeks to capture, in a fictionalised manner the events that occurred since 2005. The film itself is a fictionalised version of real-life events.

3. The Respondent No.1/Plaintiff - Ms. Aparna Bhat (hereinafter, "Plaintiff") is a practising lawyer. As per the plaint, she is stated to be practising in the area of women's rights, children's rights and rights of other underprivileged sections of society. The case in the plaint is that she was the lawyer representing acid attack survivor Ms. Laxmi Agarwal. The Plaintiff had represented her in the criminal trial, which ensued after the attack, in the High Court and also in a PIL in the Supreme Court. It is her case in the plaint that she was approached by Defendant No. 1 for her assistance in the making of the film. The Plaintiff claims she was involved in the making of the film by giving her inputs, providing documents, explaining the legal nuances in the entire journey, editing the script etc.,

4. The Plaintiff avers that Defendant No.1 had consulted her extensively for the purpose of the script and had obtained her inputs when the draft screenplay was sent by Defendant No.1 to her. It is further claimed that she had familiarized Defendant No.1 with the various court processes, and facilitated visits to the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court so as to give her a flavour of the real situation. It is her case that in 2018, when the script was being discussed between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1, it was agreed that the Plaintiff's role in film would be acknowledged by mentioning the same in the film as under:

"Aparna Bhat continues to fight cases of sexual and physical violence against women"

5. Reliance is placed by the Plaintiff on various emails and other communications exchanged between the parties, extracts from the script which contain the handwritten inputs given by her, as also the notices exchanged.

6. It is stated in the plaint that the Plaintiff was extremely surprised when she was invited for a premier of the film on 7th January, 2020 and realised that there was no acknowledgement about her role in the film. Accordingly, the suit for injunction was filed before the Trial Court seeking the following reliefs:

"(a) A decree of prohibitory/mandatory injunction be passed against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff, directing the defendants and its officials to restrain the public release of the film on 10.01.2020;

(b) Cost of the proceedings/ suit be also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant;

(c) Grant mandatory injunction for inclusion of the Plaintiff's name in acknowledgments as promised/accepted by the Defendant in communication dated 17.11.2018 prior to the release of the film on 10.01.2020;

(d) Such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be."

7. Along with the plaint, an application seeking interim relief was also filed, in which the prayer sought was as under:

"(a) Pending hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendants either themselves or through anyone acting on