1. This application raises a very interesting legal situation. It may be necessary to set out the factual matrix in a nutshell, sans unnecessary details and particulars, for better understanding and appreciation of this order.

2. Factual Matrix in a Nutshell:

(a) One P. Suresh (son of A. Perumal) (hereinafter referred to as 'PSR' for brevity and clarity) was engaged as a Product Developer by a private limited company which goes by the name QD Seatamon Designs Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'QDS Company' for brevity and clarity). According to PSR, he rendered services as product developer for QDS company for more than four years after which he chose to terminate his engagement with QDS company on 27.6.2017 citing family reasons. Ironically and incidentally, this termination or this terminating point is the originating point of this entire lis.

(b) PSR would go on to say that as a matter of good faith and goodwill gesture, he continued to attend the office of QDS company till 15.7.2017. It is PSR's allegation that QDS company compelled him to sign a job offer letter post aforesaid termination. QDS company would deny this allegation. It may not be necessary to delve further into these factual controversies in the light of the limited and narrow scope of the instant application.

(c) It is PSR's case that QDS company sent mails / communications inter-alia alleging that PSR's termination had not been accepted as he was handling sensitive and valuable information relating to copyright and other intellectual properties owned by QDS company.

(d) To be noted, copyright and intellectual property rights which are subject matter of this lis are inter-alia constituted by original prototype samples pertaining to either Fall 17 collection, other past season collections and hard copies of the colour print outs for Fall 17 collection, all pertaining to apparel (this shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as 'suit copyright' for the sake of convenience and clarity). Further to be noted, while PSR disputes that QDS company has any copyright qua suit copyright, QDS company is asserting the contrary.

(e) It is also PSR's case that a barrage of mails and communications sent by QDS company in this regard are illegal, baseless and groundless qua suit copyright. On this basis, PSR filed a suit in this Court being C.S. No. 632 of 2017. This suit was presented on 09.08.2017 and this suit is primarily under Section 60 of 'The Copyright Act, 1957' (hereinafter referred to as 'CR Act' for brevity).

(f) Prayers in this suit included injunctive relief against QDS company qua groundless and illegal threats pertaining to suit copyright, damages for Rs. 25,01,000/-, declaratory relief that communications sent by QDS company (which constitutes the fulcrum of the suit) are illegal / groundless, for a declaration that PSR has not infringed suit copyright or an other confidential information. Another declaration prayer that QDS company is not the owner of the suit copyright, for costs and a usual residuary limb form part of the suit prayer. To be noted, communications which constitute the fulcrum of this suit have been set out as three emails, dated 6.7.2017, 13.7.2017 and 4.8.2017 sent by QDS company to PSR. This suit, i.e., C.S. No. 632 of 2017 filed under Section 60 of CR Act and presented in this Court on 9.8.2017 shall hereinafter be referred to as 'senior suit'.

(g) Suit summons in senior suit was duly served on the sole defendant, i.e., QDS company. Thereafter, QDS company filed/presented a suit being C.S. No. 742 of 2017 on the file of this court on 15.9.2017. This suit is inter-alia under Sections 51 and 55 of CR Act. PSR is the sole defendant in this suit. Prayers in this suit are for injunctive relief qua suit copyright, damages for alleged mental agony owing to alleged infringement of suit copyright, for delivery of offending material and costs. This infringement suit shall hereinafter be referred to as 'junior suit' for the sake of co