The judgment reiterates the need for swift resolution of intellectual property disputes while maintaining parties' rights in ongoing litigation.

JUDGMENT

The challenge in the above appeal is against the order declining the prayer for injunction in I.A.No.202 of 2012 in O.S.No.205 of 2011 dated 27/02/2012 of the Sub Court, Thiruvalla. In fact the order under challenge is a common order in I.A.No.1456 of 2011 and I.A.No.202 of 2012 in the above suit among which I.A.No.1456 of 2011 was preferred by the plaintiffs whereas I.A.No.202 of 2012 is filed by the defendants in the above suit. By the above common order the learned Judge while allowing the petition filed by the plaintiff dismissed I.A.No.202 of 2012 preferred by the defendants. Therefore, the petitioners in the above I.A. who are the defendants in the above suit preferred the present appeal.

2. Heard Adv.Sri.C.S.Manilal, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Gireesh Varma, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. As this Court is not inclined to grant order of stay against the operation of the impugned order in the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the above F.A.O may be disposed of directing the court below to dispose the suit within a time frame, untrammeled by any of the observation or finding of the learned Sub Judge that is contained in the above common order.

4. The prayer in I.A.No.202 of 2012 is seeking an order of injunction, restraining the respondents therein who are the plaintiffs in the suit, from making the film based on the story, screen play and shooting script written by the 1st defendant/ 1st appellant and release of the film without including the name of the 1st defendant as the writer of the story, screen play and dialogue of the film in the film and its banners, posters and other advertisement without paying the agreed balance consideration. Now it is beyond dispute that the feature film namely 'Thanichalla njan' is already released. So, according to me, considering the subsequent development and changed circumstance the present appeal, challenging the above order, need not be retained on the file of this Court any more, but the appeal can be disposed of directing the trial court to expedite the trial of the suit and dispose of the same within a reasonable time to be fixed by this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if this Court is inclined to dispose of this appeal in the aforesaid manner, the trial court may be directed to dispose of the suit untrammeled by any of the observation or decision of the Sub Court that is contained in the order impugned in this appeal. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is stoutly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case and the nature of the rival contentions raised, the appeal is disposed of directing the Sub Court, Thiruvalla to take up O.S.No.205 of 2011 for trial and dispose the same, untrammeled by any of the observations or comments or remarks contained in the impugned order which are made before going into the trial of the suit. But it is made clear that, after having considered the evidence and materials on the basis of the rival contentions if the learned Judge of the Sub Court is of the opinion that the findings or observations of the learned Sub Jude in the order dated 27/02/2012 are correct, this order will not stand in the way of the learned Judge in reiterating the observation and finding contained in the order under challenge and disposing the suit accordingly. Thus, the learned Judge of the Sub Court, Thiruvalla is directed to list O.S.No.205 of 2011 for trial during the month of July, 2013 and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within three months from listing the suit, in accordance with merits of the case.

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

skj