- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35425 MFA No. 5536 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5536 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. K.N. MEHARUNNISA REHAMAN D/O K.H. KABOOL HUSSAIN, W/O H.A. REHAMAN, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.34/2, 3RD B-2ND MAIN ROAD, AROGYA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560091. 2. SRI. MUNISWAMY S.D. AGED ABOUT MAJOR, A.M.S. PRODUCTIONS, NO.101, 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS, DODDAIAH CIRCLE, SADARAMANGALA, KADUGODI, BANGALORE-560 067. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NAGARAJA S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI K. MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, S/O K.H. KABOOL HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, PRODUCER OF YAJAMANA AND HUCCHA FILMS, R/AT FLAT NO.S-2, NAYANA RESIDENCY, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35425 MFA No. 5536 of 2025 2ND FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD, BEHIND MALLATHAHALLI CLUB, ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGARA, VISHWANEEDAM, BANGALORE-560091. JOINT PRODUCER OF FILMS (OSCAR FILMS) 2. QUBE CINEMAS NO.1034, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, 4TH CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. UFO CINEMAS NO.32/1-2, CRESCENT ROAD, OFF-RACE COURSE ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR, HIGH GROUNDS, BANGALORE-560 001. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUDHIR KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DATED 8/9/2025, NOTICE TO R2 & R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2025 PASSED ON I.A. IN OS.NO. 5559/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH.5), ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35425 MFA No. 5536 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appeal is filed by defendant No.1 questioning the order dated 03.03.2025 passed on the application filed under order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.5559/2024 by IX City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-5), thereby an order of temporary injunction is granted restraining the defendants, and their agents, servants, followers, employees etc., from re- releasing the Kannada films viz., Yajamana and Huccha for screening in any film theaters pending disposal of the suit. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, and their agents, servants, followers, employees etc., from re-releasing the above said Kannada films in the theaters for screening. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff also being the Co-producer along with defendant No.1 has produced the above said two Kannada films viz., Yajamana and Huccha under the banner of OSCAR FILMS. Therefore, if defendant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35425 MFA No. 5536 of 2025 No.1 is allowed to re-release the above said two films, then the plaintiff would be put into loss. Therefore, filed the suit. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that the plaintiff is not the Co-producer of OSCAR FILMS and defendant No.1 alone is the proprietor of OSCAR FILMS and these two films have been released under the banner of OSCAR FILMS, which is fortified by the documents evidenced such as Censor Board Certificate, letter from the Kannada Film Producers’ Association and letter of Prasad Film Laboratories. Therefore, submitted that the plaintiff does not have prima facie materials to show that the plaintiff is the owner of OSCAR FILMS. When this being the fact, the trial Court without discussing anything on this point has erroneously granted an order of temporary injunction. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted application along with the documents which are - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35425 MFA No. 5536 of 2025 two certificates issued by the Central Board of Film Certification and the letter from the Kannada Film Producers’ Association and letter of Prasad Film Laboratories. Admittedly, these documents have not been produced before the trial Court for perusal and these documents are produced for the first time in this Court by invoking Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. Though, the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC is for production of additional evidence, but during pre-trial stage these documents cannot attain the characteristic as evidence to be led in the suit in the trail, but these documents can be considered as a prima facie material. 5. At the same time, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the consent letter that defendant No.1 has consented the plaintiff to get re- release the said two featured films by relinquishing all the rights and entitlements in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is contemplated that by this consent letter - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35425 MFA No. 5536 of 2025 defendant No.1 has relinquished all the rights and entitlements in favour of the plaintiff. 6. Upon considering these two submissions with reference to the documentary evidence, admittedly, the producer of these two featured films is OSCAR FILMS, Bengaluru. The plaintiff is not disputing these two documents. The letter issued by the Kannada Film Producers’ Association reveals that the membership is received by OSCAR FILMS showing defendant No.1 as its proprietor and also the letter of Prasad Film Laboratories prima facie reveals that there was an agreement between the producer of the film and Prasad Film Laboratories and agreement is signed showing the name of defendant No.1. Also in the advertisement for releasing of these two featured films in which it is shown that the producer is one K.N.Mohammed Musthafa, who is the plaintiff. 7. Upon considering the consent letter, which is in the letter head of OSCAR FILMS the name of producer is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35425 MFA No. 5536 of 2025 shown as defendant No.1. Whether the defendant No.1 has relinquished the interest, rights and entitlements in favour of the plaintiff or not is the question for trial in the suit. But at this stage, since the dispute is between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and if re-releasing of these two featured films is injuncted, then no one will get benefited. 8. Therefore, upon considering the prima facie materials produced at this stage, even in the consent letter relied on by the plaintiff, the name of proprietor is defendant No.1. Whether the defendant No.1 has relinquished rights and entitlements in favour of the plaintiff is the question for trial but prima facie shows that defendant No.1 is the owner of OSCAR FILMS. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court restraining defendant No.1 from re-releasing the above said two Kannada featured films is liable to be lifted/set aside. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35425 MFA No. 5536 of 2025 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. However, it is ordered to re-release the above stated two Kannada featured films as per the prevailed norms. 10. Since, the dispute is regarding claiming ownership over the films, therefore, whatever sale proceeds of re-releasing the films shall be deposited in the Bank Account of the Court, in which, the suit is pending and Civil Court is directed to invest the said amount in any Nationalized Bank so as to earn interest. The said amount shall not be released unless application is filed and considering the said application as per law. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32