Meena/Suchitra IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 28 OF 2024 MR. CHURCHILL BRAZ ALEMAO Son of Late Shrubraz Alemao Aged 74 years, Politician, Married, Indian National, Resident of H.No.150, Novangully Varca, Salcete, Goa – 403 721 .... Applicant.

V/s.

1. BHANUSHALI STUDIOS LTD.

Having oice at 12^th Floor, 1216, B & C Wing C/66, G Block, One BKC, Opp. Bank of Baroda, Bandra, Mumbai Maharashtra-400

051.

2. BOMBAY FABLES MOTION PICTURES, Having Oice D4, N S Road No.10, Jaihind Society, JVPD Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400049.

3. Mrs. Sejal Shah, Director, Major of age, Indian National, Having Oice D4, N S Road No.10, Jaihind Society, JVPD Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400049.

.... Respondents.

Mr. Subhodh Kantak, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Jitendra Supekar, Ms. Yulette Coutinho, Mr. Roger D’Souza, Ms. Neha Kholkar, and Ms. Saicha Desai, Advocates for the Applicant.

Mr. V. Dhond, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Nikhil Vaze, Mr. Prashant Gawali, Ms. Savani Vaze, Mr. A.S. Kunde, Ms. Vedanshi Shah, Ms. Mahalaxmi Ganapathy, Ms. Karishma Rao and Mr. Tanmay Bhave, Advocates for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar with Mr. Nikhil Vaze, Mr. Prashant Gawali, Ms. Savani Vaze, Mr. A.S. Kunde, Ms. Vedanshi Shah, Ms. Mahalaxmi Ganapathy, Ms. Karishma Rao and Mr. Tanmay Bhave, Advocates for the Respondent No.3.

CORAM : VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

DATED : 30TH APRIL, 2025.

ORDER:

1. In this appeal, under Order 43 CPC, the Original Plaintif has challenged two orders, both dated 20.07.2024 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division at Margao in Special Civil Suit No.14/2024/III. he irst order rejects an application for temporary injunction (at Exhibit 4 before the Trial Court) while the second order rejects an application (at Exhibit 15 before the Trial Court) moved under Section 151 CPC.

2. In the application at Exhibit 4, the Plaintif/Appellant herein sought for an order of temporary injunction to restrain the Respondents/Original Defendants from carrying on any further production of the Suit Movie and from releasing the same in theatres or OTT platform or any other source in India or abroad, including from release of its trailer; the second application at Exhibit 15 is one purporting to be under Section 151 CPC and seeks a direction for screening of the Suit Film in the presence of the Trial Court, the Plaintif, his family members before release of its poster, teaser and movie itself and a committee of experts to be appointed by the Court, which committee would view the ilm and submit a report to the Court.

3. An order on Exhibit 15, which essentially invokes the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 CPC, is not an appealable order in terms of Order 43 CPC and this appeal, in that context, would not be maintainable.

To that extent, this appeal would stand dismissed.

Considering that the appeal would be maintainable only against the order dated 20.07.2024 rejecting Exhibit 4 (for an order of temporary injunction), I would restrict myself to considering the challenge thrown in this appeal to this order.

4. he facts, which would be relevant to the decision of this appeal, are the following:

a. A plaint came to be lodged (Special Civil Suit No.14/2024/III before the Civil Court wherein the Appellant/Sole Plaintif claims the following reliefs:

A. hat this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant permanent injunction against the Defendants from carrying on any further production of the suit movie and from releasing the same in theatres and/or OTT Platform and/or any other source in India or abroad including trailer of the suit movie.

B. hat this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant temporary injunction against the Defendants from carrying on any further production of the suit movie and from releasing the same in theatres and/or OTT Platform and/or any other source in India or abroad including trailer of the suit movie.

C. hat this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Defendants to pay to this P