Interim injunctions must consider the prima facie case and balance of convenience, especially where prior rights and public airing exist.

1. The present revisional application has been filed against an order dated December 17, 2019 passed by the learned Presiding Judge in the Court of learned District Judge, Alipore in Misc. Appeal No. 344 of 2019 rejecting the petitioner's application for stay of operation of the order no. 2 dated December 3, 2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 5th Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 1187 of 2019.

2. The petitioner is a Company, which deals with film production, film distribution, television production and web production etc. The petitioner also produced Bengali films of acclaim. The petitioner claims that on the basis of an agreement executed by Ms. Sananda Ganguly, an agent and constituted attorney of the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 (the heirs of late Saradindu Mukherjee), the petitioner got exclusive rights of all stories based on the character of ''Byomkesh Bakshi'' authored by late Saradindu Bandopadhyay for the purpose of production of one or more audio visual programme primarily intended to be produced for exhibition through the internet. It is contended that from October 2017, the petitioner Company has been producing web series on the stories of Byomkesh Bakshi which were available as a web series in Hoichoi App.

3. The petitioner claims that the petitioner was served a notice dated December 3, 2019 by a learned Advocate informing the petitioner about the institution of Title Suit No. 1187 of 2019 by the opposite party no.1 against the petitioner and others and extract of the operative portion of an ad - interim order dated December 3, 2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 5th Court at Alipore in the application for temporary injunction was also served upon the petitioner.

4. Aggrieved by such an ad - interim order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Alipore, which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 344 of 2019. The petitioner filed an application for stay of operation of the order dated December 3, 2019 before the lower appellate Court. By an order dated December 9, 2019 the learned District Judge at Alipore, District 24 Parganas(South) refused to grant an interim order of stay of operation of the order dated December 3, 2019.

5. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing C.O. 4207 of 2019. C.O. 4207 of 2019 was disposed of by this Court upon contested hearing with a direction upon the learned District Judge at Alipore, District 24 Parganas(South) to hear out the application for grant of stay of operation of the ad - interim order passed by the learned Trial Judge within the next date fixed, that is, within December 17, 2019. This Court clarified that the contents which were sold prior to December 3, 2019 and were scheduled to be aired would not be affected by the order dated December 3, 2019. Thereafter, the application for stay was taken up for hearing by the learned Presiding Judge - in - Charge of the Court of the learned District Judge at Alipore on December 17, 2019.

6. By the order impugned, the learned Presiding Judge rejected the application for stay dated December 9, 2019 and fixed the hearing of the appeal on January 15, 2020.

7. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has preferred this revisional application being the defendant no.1 in the title suit. The first contention of the petitioner is that the learned trial judge did not consider the