Kerala High Court
M/S. Emirates Productions vs Akhil Dev S on 20 January, 2025
FAO NO.156 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:3895
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 30TH POUSHA, 1946
FAO NO.156 OF 2024
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2024 IN IA No.8
of 2024 IN O.S.No.39 of 2023 OF THE IST ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4/DEFENDANTS NO.1 TO 4:
1 M/S.EMIRATES PRODUCTIONS
AGED 54 YEARS
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT EMIRATES, RAM NAGAR ROAD,
PUTHIYAVALAPPU, KANJANGAD, KASARAGOD
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER VIJAYAN
PALLIKKARA, PIN - 671531
2 VIJAYAN PALLIKKARA
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. AMBU POLLAKKADA, AGED 54 YEARS, MANAGING
PARTNER, M/S. EMIRATES PRODUCTIONS, EMIRATES,
RAM NAGAR ROAD, PUTHIYAVALAPPU, KANJANGAD,
KASARAGOD, PIN - 671531
3 GAYATHRI VIJAYAN
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O. VIJAYAN PALLIKKARA, PARTNER, M/S. EMIRATES
PRODUCTIONS, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT EMIRATES, RAM
NAGAR ROAD, PUTHIYAVALAPPU, KANJANGAD,
KASARAGOD, PIN - 671531
4 SUNEESH VARANADU
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. K.SADASIVAN NAIR, 'SIVODAYAM', VARANADU
P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPUZHA, PIN - 688539
BY ADV MOHAMMED SIYAD M.F.
FAO NO.156 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:3895
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS-PLAINTIFFS AND RESPONDENTS NO.5 & 6
- DEFENDANTS NO.5 & 6:
1 AKHIL DEV S
S/O. SOMAN, AGED 36 YEARS, A043,
DLF RIVERSIDE, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD,
VYTILA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682019
2 RADHAKRISHNAN V
ALSO KNOWN AS VIVIAN RADHAKRISHNAN,
S/O. V.SURENDRABABU, AGED 36 YEARS,
VELLARAMKALLIL, CHALAVARA, PALAKKAD - 679 505
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT A043, DLF RIVERSIDE,
SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, VYTILA P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682019
3 SAIJU KURUP
AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. N.G. KURUP, 7 A,
SKYLINE ZIRCON, VIDYA NAGAR,
KADAVANTHRA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682020
4 NOUSHAD M
ALSO KNOWN AS NOUSHAD SAFRON,
AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. AZEEZ, SAFRON,
VEEKSHANAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682018
BY ADVS. ANIL PRASAD, R1, R2
SABU P.JOSEPH(K/1406/1998),
C.N.SREEKUMAR(K/716/1996)
MANJU PAUL(K/362/1998)
BEYON T. VARGHESE(K/2609/2021)
K.S.MUHAMMED SHEFIN(K/002107/2021)
K.R.MONISHA, R3
KRISHNA PRASAD S., R4
SINDHU S KAMATH(K/1514/1998)
SWAPNA S.K.(K/949/1999)
ROHINI NAIR(K/1407/2019)
SURAJ KUMAR D.(MS.8006/2021)
SUNILKUMAR K.K.(K/000368/2023)
A.KARTHIKA SIVAN(K/004179/2023)
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 20.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
FAO NO.156 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:3895
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of January, 2025 This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 26.10.2024 in IA No.8 of 2024 in O.S.No.39 of 2023 of the Ist Additional District Judge, Ernakulam. Appellants were the respondents in the I.A. and defendants in the said O.S. Respondents herein were the petitioners in the I.A. and the plaintiffs in the suit (Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the O.S.).
2. O.S.No.39 of 2023 was filed by the plaintiffs alleging copyright infringement of a film script by the defendants.
3. It is contended that the 2 nd plaintiff had authored a film/movie script in Malayalam titled 'Subham'. He entered into an 'Assignment Agreement' dated 18.01.2018 with the 1 st plaintiff, whereby the irrevocable and exclusive rights to make a film out of the said script had been acquired by the 1 st plaintiff. An amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was received by the 2 nd plaintiff FAO NO.156 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:3895 from the 1st plaintiff as consideration. Pursuant to the agreement, pre-production steps for making the movie 'Subham' commenced in March, 2021. Substantial amounts were expended by the 1st plaintiff in the said respect. Thereafter, on 01.09.2023, the 1 st plaintiff came to know about the promotional activities of another Malayalam film by name 'Porattu Nadakam' produced by the 2nd defendant and co- produced by the 3rd defendant. Upon hearing the plot of the said film, the 1st plaintiff realised that the content of the script of his film 'Subham' had been stolen from the original script written by the 2nd plaintiff and had been used in the making of 'Porattu Nadakam'. He alleges that the 5th defendant, who had been proposed as the lead actor in 'Subham' to whom the script had been narrated, had been instrumental in the copyright violation. When the official teaser of the film 'Porattu Nadakam' was released through various social media platforms claiming that the script thereof had been written by the 4 th defendant, the 1st plaintiff issued a lawyer notice to the 2nd and 3rd defendants. Since the same was not responded to, the suit was FAO NO.156 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:3895 filed inter alia seeking to restrain defendants 1 to 3 from producing, censoring, releasing, dubbing and remaking the Malayalam film 'Porattu Nadakam', based on the Malayalam movie script 'Subham', in any other languages in India or abroad infringing the copyright and ownership of the 1 st plaintiff without written permission. A temporary injunction was also sought, which was granted, ex parte. Later, the defendants entered in appearance and the I.A. was heard. A consensual order dated 16.12.2023 was passed whereby an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- was deposited in court by defendants 1 to 3 pursuant to which they were permitted to complete production of the film 'Porattu Nadakam' and release the same without prejudice to the claim of the plaintiffs over the script. While so, an Advocate Commissioner had been appointed to watch the film 'Porattu Nadakam' and to evaluate the same with the story and script of 'Subham'. The Advocate Commissioner reported that three common factors were noted in the story and script and also that option 2 of the synopsis of the script of 'Subham' is similar to the story of 'Porattu Nadakam'. I.A.No.8 of 2024 FAO NO.156 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:3895 was then filed by the plaintiffs seeking a temporary injunction restraining defendants 1 to 6 from the sale, transfer or assignment of intellectual property rights associated with the film to any third parties including OTT platforms television channels, YouTube or any other forms of monetary exploitation through any mediums except for theatrical release, till the disposal of the suit. The said I.A. was allowed vide order dated 26.10.2024. The same is assailed by defendants 1 to 4 in this F.A.O.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking to dismiss the F.A.O. inter alia contending that due to the copy right violation committed by the defendants, the movie project of the plaintiffs has been stalled and huge losses have been suffered by them. It is also contended therein that the consensual order dated 16.12.2023 happened to be passed since their counsel had conceded to the same without obtaining instructions from them. The mere fact that the movie 'Porattu Nadakam' has already been released in theatres across the State of Kerala pursuant to the consensual order, does not FAO NO.156 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:3895 preclude the plaintiffs from seeking the interim orders sought in I.A.No.8 of 2024 since it is still open to the defendants to use the script for the production of movies in other languages in India and abroad. If the movie is allowed to be exhibited globally through various platforms like OTT, the plaintiffs will not be able to use the script subsequently and it will cause great loss to them and the reliefs sought in the suit will become infructuous. It is the intellectual property rights in question that are the central focus and subject matter of the interim order granted by the District Court. By the order impugned, the court has effectively maintained the status quo and prevented the defendants from unilaterally altering the ownership and control of the intellectual rights. The restriction imposed by the impugned order serves to protect the interest of both parties and the integrity of the judicial process. It will ensure that the Intellectual Property Rights would remain intact and available for the court to make a final determination of the rightful ownership and usage, based on the merits of the case. Reliance is placed on the Advocate Commissioner's report and it is FAO NO.156 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:3895 contended that notable similarities in plot, characterization and narrative of the protagonist in the film 'Porattu Nadakam' when compared with the script of 'Subham' have been noted in the report. Reliance is placed on the doctrine of lis pendens and it is contended that the defendants cannot claim to be the rightful owners of the intellectual property rights and are not entitled to execute any assignments. It is further contended that the plaintiffs are entitled to pursue all remedies available to them under the Copyright Act, 1957 including injunction and damages for the infringement of the copyright owned by plaintiff No.1 over the film script of 'Subham'. The counter affidavit filed by plaintiffs 1 and 2 thus sought dismissal of the F.A.O.
5. Heard Sri.Mohammed Siyad M.F., Advocate for defendants 1 to 4 (appellants). Sri.Sabu P.Joseph, Advocate for plaintiffs 1 and 2 (respondents 1 and 2), Smt.K.R.Monisha, Advocate for defendant No.5 (respondent No.3) and Krishnaprasad S., Advocate for defendant No.6 (respondent No.4).
6. The learned counsel appearing for defendant Nos.1 FAO NO.156 OF 2024 9 2025:KER:3895 to 4 submitted that the order impugned is not legally sustainable on more than one ground. He principally assails the reliance placed by the District Court on the report of the Advocate Commissioner and submits that appointing an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of comparing scripts and finding out similarities, if any, is not a legally sound or reliable method for ascertaining alleged infringement of copyrights. The purported similarities, found by the Advocate Commissioner as well as the court are chimerical and do not substantiate the allegations of copyright violation put forth by the plaintiffs. Scene-to-scene comparison has not been carried out either by the Advocate Commissioner or by the Court. The similarities found, if any, are neither significant nor important. The story of 'Porattu Nadakam' was inspired by a real-life event that took place in Chadayamangalam in 2019 and was reported on TV. It is trite that one of the sure and safest test to determine whether or not there has been a violation of copyright is to see if the reader, spectator or viewer, after having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and FAO NO.156 OF 2024 10 2025:KER:3895 gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the purported original. To buttress this contention, he places reliance on the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in R.G.Anand v. Delux Films and others [(1978) 4 SCC 118]. The course adopted by the District Court is not in line with the mandates of the said judgment. The learned counsel further submits that the release as permitted under the consensual order dated 16.12.2023 encompasses within itself all possible forms/methods of the release of the film 'Porattu Nadakam' both in theatres and in OTT and on similar other platforms. I.A.No.8 of 2024 leading to the impugned order had been filed subsequent to the consensual order seeking to interdict the release of the film in OTT and on other platforms only as an oblique attempt to put duress on the defendants to succumb to the illegal demands of the plaintiffs. If the release in the OTT and other similar platforms does not coincide with the theatrical releases, substantial loss and injury would be occasioned to the defendants. Any delayed release in OTT and other platforms after the theatrical release would mean a huge FAO NO.156 OF 2024 11 2025:KER:3895 loss in both viewership and revenue to the defendants 1 to 3. On the contrary, the plaintiffs had nothing whatsoever to lose. Except for a bald assertion, no legally reliable material had been produced to even prima facie substantiate the pre-production of 'Subham' or alleged expenditure incurred in the said respect. Whereas, 'Porattu Nadakam' has been produced and released in theatres and OTT and similar release now injuncted, leads to substantial loss and injury to defendants 1 to 4. The plaintiffs after acceding to the consensual order and having secured the amount of Rs.7,50,000/- as a deposit in the court are now attempting to wriggle out of the said consensual order. No prayer had been raised separately in the suit or in the earlier I.A. seeking an injunction of OTT and similar release. The I.A. lacks bonafide and legal sustainability. The District Court erred in allowing the same.
7. Sri.Sabu P.Joseph, learned counsel for plaintiffs 1 and 2, vehemently contended that the pre-production of 'Subham' had already commenced and much amounts had been expended in the said respect. The contention that 'Porattu FAO NO.156 OF 2024 12 2025:KER:3895 Nadakam' has an independent plot and a storyline based on a true incident of 2019 does not hold water as it draws on and has substantial similarity with 'Subham' which was written in 2018. Though the consensual order is indeed in place, the same does not cover the release on OTT and other similar platforms which has been injuncted in the impugned order. OTT and similar releases are substantially different from theatrical releases in terms of their implications on the script rights in so far the transfer of entire rights occur in the former while, the script rights remain with the producer and are not transferred in the latter, i.e., when release is confined to theatres. He submits that irreparable loss and injury will be occasioned to the plaintiffs if permission is granted to release the film 'Porattu Nadakam' on OTT and on similar platforms as that would effectively preclude the plaintiffs from even remaking the movie using the script of 'Subham' in other Indian languages. It is contended that a prima facie case has been successfully made out by the plaintiffs and the District Court had in the impugned order properly appreciated the relevant aspects including the FAO NO.156 OF 2024 13 2025:KER:3895 Advocate Commissioner report. The District Court has also arrived at the conclusion after comparing both scripts on its own and the finding arrived at is not solely based on the Advocate Commissioner's report. Once the script rights have been purchased based on the agreement, the producer has exclusive ownership of the copyright. The scriptwriter cannot claim any ancillary rights with respect to the movie. All such rights stand vested with the producer. The learned counsel further made submissions in line with averments in the counter affidavit filed. He submits that the order of the District Court calls for no interference and the F.A.O. is only to be dismissed with costs.
8. The learned counsel appearing for defendants 5 and 6 made submissions in line with the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for defendants 1 to 4. The learned counsel for the 6th defendant adds that the relevant script had not been copyrighted. Hence, according to him, the plaintiffs have acquired no rights to raise the contentions as seen now raised in the suit or the I.A.
9. After hearing the counsel and perusing the FAO NO.156 OF 2024 14 2025:KER:3895 pleadings, I find force in the contention put forth by the learned counsel for defendants 1 to 4 that the course adopted by the District Court for appointing an Advocate Commissioner to watch the movie and to report to the court after comparing the scripts is erroneous and not in line with the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.G. Anand (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the said judgment after careful consideration and elucidation of the various authorities and the case law on the subject of copyright infringement, evolved the principles to be adopted in the said respect. The same are enumerated in the said judgment as follows:
"46. Thus, on a careful consideration and elucidation of the various authorities and the case law on the subject discussed above, the following propositions emerge :
1. There can be no copyright in an idea, subject matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts and violation of the copyright in such cases is confined to the form, manner and arrangement and expression of the idea by the author of the copyrighted work.
2. Where the same idea is being developed in a different manner, it is manifest that the source being common, similarities are bound to occur. In such a case the courts should determine whether or not the similarities are on fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of expression adopted in the copyrighted work. If the defendant's work is nothing but a literal imitation of the copyrighted, work with some variations here and there it would amount to violation of the copyright. In other words, in order to be FAO NO.156 OF 2024 15 2025:KER:3895 actionable the copy must be a substantial and material one which at once leads to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty of an act of piracy.
3. One of the surest and the safest test to determine whether or not there has been a violation of copyright is to see if the reader, spectator or the viewer after having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original.
4. Where the theme is the same but is presented and treated differently so that the subsequent work becomes a completely new work, no question of violation of copyright arises.
5. Where however apart from the similarities appearing in the two works there are also material and broad dissimilarities which negative the intention to copy the original and the coincidences appearing in the two works are clearly incidental no infringement of the copyright comes into existence.
6. As a violation of copyright amounts to an act of piracy it must be proved by clear and cogent evidence after applying the various tests laid down by the case law discussed above.
7. Where, however, the question is of the violation of the copyright of stage play by a film producer or a Director the task of the plaintiff becomes more difficult to prove piracy. It is manifest that unlike a stage play a film has a much broader perspective, wider field and a bigger background where the defendants can by introducing a variety of incidents give a colour and complexion different from the manner in which the copyrighted work has expressed the idea. Even so, if the viewer after seeing the film gets a totality of impression that the film is by and large a copy of the original play, violation of the copyright may be said to be proved."
In the light of the above norms, a cursory analysis or comparison of the scripts by an Advocate Commissioner cannot be the basis for assessing or identifying copyright infringement. FAO NO.156 OF 2024 16
2025:KER:3895 An endeavour to ascertain whether a viewer after seeing the work would clearly be drawn to conclude or get an unmistakable impression that one work is a copy of the other is to be carried out. The said task cannot be relegated to an Advocate Commissioner.
10. The theatrical release of the film 'Porattu Nadakam' had already been carried out pursuant to the consensual order dated 16.12.2023 permitting the release. The contention that a simultaneous release in the OTT and other platforms coinciding with the theatrical release is necessary to protect the interest of the defendants otherwise the relevance/significance of the film would be lost in the course of time, leading to substantial pecuniary damage to defendants 1 to 3 is reasonable and valid. Moreover, it is seen that the consensual order rendered earlier is not a qualified one restricted to Theatrical release alone. The operative portion thereof reads as follows:
"6. Hence the interim order dated 30.10.2023 is modified and the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit Rs.7,50,000/- on or before 20.12.2023. On deposit of the amount, the respondents will be at liberty to complete the production of the film FAO NO.156 OF 2024 17 2025:KER:3895 "Porottu Natakam" and release the same, without prejudice to the claim of the plaintiffs over the script, their right to claim compensation or other reliefs, if ultimately it is found that there is infringement of copyright."
The release as envisaged in the order could only have been a release in all possible formats and cannot be confined to theatrical release. After having acceded to a consensual order, pursuant to which the security amount agreed was deposited before the District Court, the plaintiffs cannot be heard to seek to restrain defendants 1 to 4 from releasing the film on OTT or other platforms. Evidently, balance of convenience lies in favour of the said defendants and in permitting them to simultaneously release the film in theatres and on OTT and other platforms. The reliance placed by the District Court on the Advocate Commissioner's report to arrive at the findings made in the impugned order is not legally sustainable. Leave alone a scene- to-scene appreciation of both the movie scripts, nothing to form and unmistakable impression to conclude one is the copy of the other has been pointed out and let alone a cursory assessment by the District Court that "there is connection in the stories." The purported WhatsApp chats between the plaintiffs and FAO NO.156 OF 2024 18 2025:KER:3895 defendant No. 5 which led the court to conclude that the script of the movie 'Subham' had been forwarded to the 5 th defendant was not by its very nature a reliable piece of evidence on which the District Court ought to have premised its order of temporary interim injunction. Taking note of the stage of the suit, the reliance placed thereupon was not legally prudent. The conclusion drawn based on an audio message stated to have been forwarded to the Advocate Commissioner by the 1 st plaintiff terming it to be a conversation between the 2 nd plaintiff and the 5th defendant also suffers from the same vice. The District Court ought not to have drawn the conclusions as arrived at in the impugned order based on such tentative materials. Though it has been stated in the impugned order that "The balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiffs and if injunction is not granted, irreparable injury will be caused to the plaintiffs." no reasoning or discussion in the said respect is forthcoming from the order.
11. The principles governing the grant of a temporary injunction is trite and settled. The criteria have been pithily laid FAO NO.156 OF 2024 19 2025:KER:3895 down by the Supreme Court in Kashi Math Samsthan and another v. Shrimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy and another (AIR 2010 SC 296) as follows:
"In order to obtain an order of injunction, the party who seeks for grant of such injunction has to prove that he has made out a prima facie case to go for trial, the balance of convenience is also in his favour and he will suffer irreparable loss and injury if injunction is not granted. But it is equally well-settled that when a party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, question of considering the balance of convenience or irreparable loss and injury to the party concerned would not be material at all, that is to say, if that party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, it is not open to the court to grant injunction in his favour even if he has made out a case of balance of convenience being in his favour and would suffer irreparable loss and injury if no injunction order is granted." (Emphasis added)
12. The scope and ambit of the term "prima facie case" has been examined and explained in Martin Burn Ltd. v. R.N.Banerjee (AIR 1958 SC 79). The Supreme Court had observed therein as follows:
"A prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt but a case which can be said to be established if the evidence which is led in support of the same were believed. While determining whether a prima facie case had been made out, the relevant consideration is whether on the evidence led, it was possible to arrive at the conclusion in question and not whether that was FAO NO.156 OF 2024 20 2025:KER:3895 the only conclusion which could be arrived at on that evidence." (Emphasis added) Thus, the existence of a bona fide dispute must be satisfied, and the court must find that the applicant is likely entitled to the relief claimed.
13. The above-mentioned mandates which are the prerequisites for granting an injunction were further extended by the addition of one more element by the Supreme Court in Mandali Ranganna and others v. T.Ramachandra and others (AIR 2008 SC 2291). It was held therein that while considering an application for grant of injunction, the Court will not only consider the basic elements in relation thereto, viz., the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, but it must also consider the conduct of the parties. Thus grant of injunction is an equitable relief. It can thus be summarised that before granting a temporary injunction, the following considerations are generally required to be satisfied:
(i) There is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.FAO NO.156 OF 2024 21
2025:KER:3895
(ii) That irreparable injury is likely to be caused to the plaintiff which cannot be compensated for in terms of money.
(iii) That the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
(iv) Conduct of the plaintiff as well as equity, justify the grant of an injunction.
14. Based on the sketchy and perfunctory comparison carried out between the scripts and the storylines, without complying with the mandates laid down in R.G.Anand (supra), the three common factors found in the story and option 2 of the synopsis of the script, cannot by itself be termed to be substantial nor as material sufficient enough to conclude that there has been an infringement of copyright. Nothing has been presented to show even prima facie that defendants 1 to 3 had copied the fundamental, essential and distinctive features or forms and/or expressions of the plaintiff's film on purpose. Consequently, even a prima facie case has not been reliably made out by the plaintiffs. Nevertheless, giving a leeway, so as to prove the mandates in Martin Burn Ltd. (supra), and even assuming that a prima facie case had been made out, there was FAO NO.156 OF 2024 22 2025:KER:3895 nothing to show that irreparable loss and injury, incapable of being compensated in terms of money existed, entitling the plaintiffs to an injunction as is seen granted by the District Court. As a matter of fact, the plaintiffs had by conceding to the consensual order, acquiesced to monetary compensation in lieu of the injunction against release. As regards the balance of convenience is concerned, it is clear that the same would tilt in favour of defendants 1 to 3 as they had already been permitted to do the theatrical releases. They would invariably stand to suffer irreparably if the OTT and similar releases are not carried out simultaneously with the theatrical release. Further, on the grounds of equity too the plaintiffs are on a slippery slope, especially after having conceded to the consensual order dated 16.12.2023 pursuant to which the security amount agreed to by them had been deposited. The contention seen taken in the counter affidavit filed in the appeal that their counsel had conceded to the order without the concurrence from the clients, is devoid of any verifiable basis.
15. In view of the above, the order dated 26.10.2024 FAO NO.156 OF 2024 23 2025:KER:3895 in I.A.No.8 of 2024 in O.S.No.39 of 2023 of the Ist Additional District Judge, Ernakulam, is unsustainable in law and the same is hereby set aside. It is clarified that the findings herein above are confined and limited to the purpose of disposal of this F.A.O. and all questions and contentions of the parties are left open to be agitated during trial.
F.A.O. is allowed. No costs.
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE csl