Court clarifies interim order issued without jurisdiction, balancing parties' interests pending transfer to competent court.

JUDGMENT

The original petition has been filed stating that an interim order of injunction has been granted by a Court without jurisdiction. The Court which granted the order had jurisdiction at the time of filing the suit, since the notification whereby the jurisdiction was lost was issued only on 11.03.2026 and the suit had been filed on 10.03.2026. The interlocutory order was passed on 12.03.2026, by which time, the Court had lost its jurisdiction because of the notification. The Court was not aware of this fact since the notification was forwarded to the Court by High Court only on 17.03.2026. The plaintiffs can also not be found fault with since they moved a Court which had jurisdiction at the time of filing. After receiving notice, the respondents entered appearance and contested the interlocutory petition. The interlocutory petition was heard and taken for orders. Thereafter, the Court suo motu advanced the petition and transferred the case to the District Court finding that the District Court alone had jurisdiction as per the notification issued on 11.03.2026. This original petition has been filed by the 2^nd defendant challenging the interlocutory order passed initially as well as the order whereby the case was transferred to the District Court. The contention is that at the time of passing the order, the Court did not have jurisdiction and the Court also did not have power to transfer a case pending before it to a higher Court in the hierarchy and could have only returned the plaint. The plaintiff has entered appearance and has filed a counter affidavit and a petition seeking a clarification. It is stated the plaintiff has already moved the District Court and the case is yet to be heard. It is submitted that since they were having an order in their favour for the past more than one month, the interim order granted by this Court at the time of admission staying the operation of the orders originally issued by the Sub Court may be kept in abeyance and they may be permitted to argue the matter before the District Court. The prayer in the IA is however for a clarification that the interim stay of operation and implementation of the order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the First Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam in I.A No.3 of 2026 in C.S.No.44 of 2026 shall not stand in the way of the Second Additional District Court, Ernakulam to which the suit has been transferred and renumbered as C.S.No.1 of 2026, from considering and passing appropriate orders on the application for temporary injunction.

2. I have heard the counsel on either side. After hearing the matter at length, this Court feels that it is only appropriate that the Court to which the matter has been transferred hears the case at the first instance both on merits as well as on the question of jurisdiction and if the Court finds that it has jurisdiction, it may proceed with the case and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. The only question is what should be done to safeguard the interests of both sides in the interregnum. The plaintiff was not at fault in moving the Sub Court. So also, the petitioner cannot also be burdened with an order which is passed without jurisdiction. The Court was also not at fault when the order was issued on 12.03.2026. As such, it is necessary to balance the rights of both sides. The interim order granted as per Ext.P4 restrains the 3^rd respondent from taking down the Musical video titled “Shiva Shivam” (Shiva Thandav) which is uploaded in the 3^rd respondent’s Youtube channel until further orders. The 3^rd respondent has not so far appeared. The prayer in the petition was only for restraining the respondents from taking down the Musical video/work classified as Cinematograph work the Copyright Act without