The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case for the grant of an order of injunction, and the court may consider previous judgments and legal proceedings to support the plaintiff's claim.

V. Periya Karuppiah, J.

1. O.A.No.794 of 2008

This application has been filed to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the 2nd defendant / 2nd respondent, its men, agents, servants, distributors or anybody claiming through or under them from in any manner infringing the exclusive copy right of the plaintiff in respect of 12 suit pictures mentioned in the schedule anywhere in India.

2. A.No.4842 of 2008

This application has been filed by the second defendant to vacate the interim injunction granted against the applicant / 2nd respondent in O.A.No.794 of 2008 in C.S.No.697 of 2008 dated 25.07.2008 and dismiss the application No.3391 of 2008 in C.S.No.697 of 2008.

3. A.No.3391 of 2008

This application has been filed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to seize the infringing all the master cassettes and the VCD / DVD cassettes of the suit pictures found anywhere in India.

4. The applicant in O.A.No.794 of 2008 and A.No.3391 of 2008 is the plaintiff and the respondents 1 & 2 are the defendants in the suit. The second defendant filed the application in A.No.4842 of 2008, to vacate the injunction already granted in O.A.No.794 of 2008, in which the respondents are the plaintiff and the first defendant respectively.

5. For convenience, the rank of the parties in the suit is referred infra.

6. Heard A. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Mr. B. Manimaran, learned counsel for the first defendant and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of M/s.C.Uma, learned counsel for the second defendant.

7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit in his argument that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff in respect of 12 Tamil cinematographic films regarding the copy rights of VCD and DVD as detailed in the plaint and for permanent injunction against the second defendant in any way exploiting the same against the interest of the plaintiff. He would further submit in his arguments that out of the said 12 Tamil cinematographic films, the second defendant has not claiming any right in respect of item 8 to 12, but they are indulging in claiming right over items 1 to 7. He would further submit in his arguments that items 1 and 2 referred to in the plaint schedule viz., 1) Pathinaru Vayathiniley; and 2) Kizhakke Pogum Rayil were dealt with in a suit filed by the second defendant before the High Court of Delhi in C.S.No.1625 of 2007 and in respect of the said two films a prima facie case has been found in favour of the plaintiff, which was also made absolute in the appeal before the same Court and it became final. He would also submit that in respect of items 3 to 7, the plaintiff has got assignments of copy rights regarding VCD and DVD of those films from the producer, the first defendant himself and therefore, it cannot be assigned by the second defendant. He would also submit that he has produced the agreements, which were entered in the year 2001 in respect of those films assigned in favour of the plaintiff. He would also submit that the first defendant while he was in possession of the copy rights in respect of those films, namely, items 1 to 7, has filed a suit against the infringing parties., viz., P.Ganesan in C.S.No.782 of 2000 and obtained injunction in O.A.No.979 of 2000 on 19.02.2001 and in A.No.2609 of 2001 on 28.06.2001 and therefore, the right of the first defendant in respect of items 1 to 7 has been recognised by this Court and the said first defendant assigned those rights in favour of the plaintiff and the second defendant has no right to interfere with the plaintiff's right to exploit the copy right regarding VCD and DVD in respect of all 12 suit films. He would further submit in his arguments that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case and if the second defendant is interfering with the copy right of the plaintiff regarding VCD and DVD in respect of the suit 12 films, certainly it will make the plaintiff to sustain irreparable loss. He would there