Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

28 Further, I have gone through the scenes, as given in the typed set of papers as well as the screen play and according to me, the Film is based on the criminal cases registered against late Veerappan and other scenes are based on the factual aspects and the revision petitioners have given an undertaking to delete the scene Nos.8 and 14, viz., the marriage of Muthulakshmi/first respondent with Veerappan and the escape of first respondent from the Task Force and arrest of the first respondent by the Police and the offending scenes, viz., the cutting of body into pieces and disposing off the same into the river, as stated supra, in scene Nos.2 and 3.

31. In the judgment reported in (2012) 3 MWN (CIVIL) 171 ( cited supra), the learned Judge dealt with the Freedom of Expression vis a vis Right to Privacy in respect of the biography of Selvi J.Jayalalitha, the present Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and granted temporary injunction from publishing the book on the ground that no prior consent was obtained from the plaintiff, nor, any reasonable verification was done by the Author and without obtaining consent, the private life of the plaintiff cannot be invaded. But, in this case, the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners had agreed to delete scenes related to the private life of the first respondent, as stated supra.

(vi)Whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury, if an order of injunction would not be passed as prayed for.

Hence, we only have to consider whether these well settled principles relating to grant of temporary injunction have been kept in mind by the First Appellate Court.

34. In this case, as held in the judgment reported in (2007) 5 CTC 694 (supra) during the lifetime of Veerappan, he has not taken any steps to oppose various publications relating to his life and publications depicting life of Veerappan were based on the criminal cases filed against him and therefore, after his death, it is not open to his wife/first respondent and his children to claim privacy of late Veerappan. Further, the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners undertook to delete scene Nos.8 and 14, relating to the first respondent and also undertook to delete certain scenes in Scene Nos.2 and 3, as discussed earlier in this order. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no prima facie case in favour of the first respondent and balance of convenience is only in favour of the revision petitioners, who have produced the Film and the first respondent will not suffer any irreparable injury by not granting injunction. Therefore, the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court granting injunction is set aside.

35. In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed, subject to the deletion of Scene Nos.8, 14, viz., the scene showing the marriage of Muthulakshmi with Veerappan and the escape of first respondent from the Task Force and arrest of the first respondent by the Police, and the undertaking of the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners that the revision petitioners would delete all the scenes, wherein, the character of the first respondent is portrayed in the Film and would also delete the offending scenes, viz., scene Nos2 and 3, as stated supra, is recorded. Though this Court, normally, may be reluctant to interfere with the order of the Lower Appellate Court in the matter of granting injunction or regarding the order of injunction, having regard to the fact that the entire case is based on records and the parties have elaborately argued their case with reference to the records, this Court is inclined to pass this detail order. Moreover, this Court is also not inclined to refer the matter for further adjudication by the Trial Court. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps are closed.