This appeal against an order of temporary injunction passed on an application under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their principal officers, directors, agents, franchisees, servants, licensees and all other persons acting for and on behalf of the defendants from publishing, advertising, reproducing, storing in any manner in any medium now known or in the future being developed, transmitting, offering for sale, selling, distributing, issuing to the public, licensing, renting, allowing access either through their web-site or CD-ROMs either free or for a fee, judgments which are identical, of a substantial and/or colourable reproduction of the text of the judgments of the Kerala Law Times (including head-notes, short notes, long notes, editorial notes, citations, various copy editing inputs described therein), as published in the KLT, or in any other publications of the plaintiff. During the course of proceedings before the Court below, additional plaintiffs were impleaded. They are collectively called the “plaintiff” hereinafter in this judgment.

2. I.A. 391/2006 was filed for an order of temporary injunction in terms of the reliefs sought for in the suit. On 7-2-2006, the Court below passed an ad interim order of injunction as prayed for. That order, after hearing parties, was made absolute as per the impugned order dated 30-6-2006.

3. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants.

4. The Lower Court records are obtained and the appeal finally heard on request of parties, in view of the lodgment of caveat.

5. In support of the appeal, Sri. Benoy K. Kadavan, the learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the order of injunction passed against the appellants consists of two aspects, to wit, an injunction against the publication of the text of the judgments and an injunction against the publication of the head-notes, short notes, long notes, editorial notes, citations, various copy editing inputs, as published in the KLT, or in any other publications of the plaintiff. He urged that in so far as the publication of judgments is concerned, the plaintiff cannot claim any copyright. As regards the publication of head-notes, short notes, long notes, editorial notes, citations, he urged that the plaintiff cannot claim any copyright unless it is demonstrated that the head notes, in whatever form, is the contribution made by the editor of the plaintiff by assimilating the contents of the judgment and then presenting it and that if portions of a judgment are merely copied, the same does not create any copyright. It was contended that if the head-notes and short notes are created by the plaintiff by merely extracting portions of the judgment, the same do not create any copyright in favour of the plaintiff. In saying so, the learned counsel for the appellants urged that merely by copying our certain portions of a judgment and placing it in a layout scheme, the plaintiff does not get a copyright.

6. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Sri. R.D. Shenoy, urged on behalf of the contesting respondents, the plaintiff, firstly, that the impugned order is not one that could be faulted on a principal and that therefore, even if two views are possible on the materials on record, the appellate Court would loath interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court. It was further urged that the materials on record unequivocally establish that the head notes, short notes etc. Over which the plaintiff has copyright have been slavishly copied and that the plaintiff has copyright in the lay out, presentation and even unavoidable corrections of mistakes in the judgments and thereby, copyright over what is called the plaintiff’s “version of the judgment”. It was also urged that having regard to the fact that the impugned order of temporary injunction is continuing against the appellants uninterruptedly from 7-2-2006, it may not be appropriate