Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.
1. Various reliefs have been sought for in this writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India but when the matter is taken up, petitioners limit their prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 7.10.2002 passed by the Subordinate Judge, I, Patna in Title Suit No. 380 of 2002 making the order of ad interim injunction dated 19.8.2002 absolute by which it had restrained the telecast of the serial 'Ram Khilawan (C.M.) 'N' Family'. Further prayer made by the petitioners is to quash the order dated 20.2.2003 passed by the XIth Additional District Judge, Patna in Misc. Appeal No. 69 of 2002 whereby the appeal preferred against the aforesaid order, has been dismissed.
2. Respondent No. 2 Radha Raman Pradhan, hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff', fifed Title Suit No. 380 of 2002, inter alia, praying for the following reliefs :--
"(i) On consideration of the facts and circumstances aforesaid an order of permanent injunction be passed against the defendants aforesaid restraining/prohibiting them from releasing or making show of the said disputed serial "Ram Khilawan (C.M) 'N' Family" on T.V. and in any Electronic Media or in any shape or form and in the meanwhile ad interim injunction be issued against them for the said purpose.
(ii) Damage of Rs. 101/- be granted to the plaintiff."
3. The plaintiff is a permanent resident of Bihar and an Advocate practising in Patna Civil Court and claims to have interest in the public affairs of the State. According to him, in an issue of the Times of India, dated 30th of July, 2002, he saw a photo of a man and woman, the man resembling Shri Laloo Prasad Yadav, the Ex-Chief-Minister of Bihar with similar face, hair-style and dress and the woman sitting by him resembling Smt. Rabri Devi, the present Chief Minister of Bihar and beneath the said photo, a note was appended which read as follows :--
"T.V. stars Vineet Kumar and Shushmita Mukherjee at the launch of their new TV, serial "Ram Khilawan (C.M.) 'N' Family' at a press Conference in New Delhi on Monday. The Serial is inspired by Laloo Prasad Yadav's life."
4. According to the plaintiff, the picture published in the Times of India made him curious to see the serial 'Ram Khilawan 'C.M.' 'N' Family", hereinafter referred to as 'the Serial' and when he viewed the same on 5.8.2002, he came to the conclusion that some evil minded persons with evil design intended to defame said Shri Laloo Prasad Yadav, Smt. Rabri Devi and their family members and also to project through them a very bad and disgraceful picture of the culture of Bihar through the character Ram Khilawan Yadav and Imriti Devi and another character Putan Yadav resembling Shri Sadhu Yadav, brother-in-law of Shri Laloo Prasad Yadav. Plaintiff further averred that the serial created an impression that the entire ministry headed by Smt. Rabri Devi as Chief Minister has practically been reduced as stooge, hanging on Laloo Prasad Yadav and the majority to the Chief Minister is maintained by the jugglery, terrorism, bargain and illegal bribery of lower level and thereby badly commenting on the representative character of the members of the legislature duly elected by the people and having constitutional position, responsibility dignity and honour.
5. According to the plaintiff, in the said Serial, at one place, the brother-in-law of the Character Ram Khilawan Yadav, presented some persons before him and his wife named Imriti Devi, intimating that the person who was an M.L.A., had under his control, three M.L. As and he has been bought by him to support the Chief Minister to prove its majority in the House and in the bargain the Character Ram Khilwan Yadav offered Rs. 25 lacs, then Rs. 50 lacs and in the end Rs. 75 lacs and the brother-in-law of the said Ram Khilawan Yadav pointed a dagger at his head and thereby made the said M.L.A, agree to the proposal of the said Ram Khilawan to bring the three M.L.As in his camp.
6. According to the plaintiff, this part of the episode was obviously created to defame and malign the present Chief Minister, her husband, family members and relations by an imaginary and cooked up false story. The description of the character in the serial, according to the plaintiff, depicts disgraceful picture of the culture of Bihar and creates an impression that the public of Bihar have lost their dignity and culture resulting into caste hatred. The plaintiff further averred that the telecast of the serial may lead to caste tension and a riot like Gujarat may occur.
7. The plaintiff also filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from telecasting the serial and in the said application, he averred as follows :--
10. That as disclosed in the plaint it has transpired that the defendants with mala fides motive and design and in order to humiliate and defame Shri Laloo Prasad Yadav. M.P., his wife Smt. Rabri Devi, Chief Minister, their family members, relations and political associates with an intention to harm the reputation of such persons and with an intention to defame the general people of Bihar, their sentiments and to denounce the cultural and social aspects as well as the glorious past of the province its administration with particular reference of Sri Laloo Prasad Yadav, Smt. Rabri Devi and their family members. The post of Chief Minister as well as role of Member of Parliament and M.L.A. are constitutional delegation being representative of the people and the defendants have tried to part them all in humiliation. Some such instances are noted in the plaint. The plaintiff begs to refer the entire plaint, annexures and documents filed, in course of hearing of this injunction petition many of the persons those who have seen the said serial were/are shocking that the dialogues and acting lowers the moral, modesty, character role to be played by virtue of the office they hold and also in respect of the caste to which they belong and it also lowers their credit, knowledge and even the religious outlook, which on the face of it appear to be disgraceful. The plaintiff as well as his friends and relations and even the professional colleagues were highly agitated and irritated and ail of them were of the indicative that it was/is a planned serial to defame those persons, referred to above. The plaintiff was also shocked and humiliated because they have been in the high esteem for the reasons noted above.
11. That it has been highly published that the serial will continue in the same manner and style with the same persons in the garb of Laloo Prasad Yadav, M.P., Smt. Rabri Devi, Chief Minister and her brothers, daughters, and sons and with the highest amount of humiliation it is being demonstrated that even a Minister of M.L.A. in Bihar is ill-treated by Shri Prasad and Smt. Rabri Devi.
12. That in a very sarcastic way all those persons holding high honorable positions are being humiliated and likely to be humiliated still, more on every Monday and Thursday in continuity from SAB Television Network Limited, which is demonstrated throughout the country and abroad including at Patna and the State of Bihar and if order of interim injunction is not passed it may cause immense injury to the people of Bihar, and a large number of country itself and to the M.L.As, Ministers, Chief Ministers, M.Ps. and political associates their admirers, and people are becoming so much sentimental after seeing the serial on 5.8.2002 and on 6.8.2002 that there may be serious laws and order problem particularly in the State of Bihar and at Patna and it may become intolerable for certain persons to tolerate the defamation of their leaders and as such, it is essential in the interest of the general people and particularly those who have respect and regard for the persons named above and thus, there is no doubt that all ingredients for grant of injunction has been made out."
8. The suit as also the application for grant of injunction were filed on 13.8.2002 which was admitted on the same date and notice was issued to the petitioners, hereinafter referred to as the defendants, to show cause as to why they be not restrained from telecasting the serial fixing 17.8.2002 as the date of appearance. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 appeared in the suit on the date fixed and prayed for time to file show cause which was granted and the suit was adjourned to 19.8.2002 for hearing on the prayer of the plaintiff for grant of injunction. On 19.8.2002, the contesting defendants filed application for adjournment which was declined by the trial Court and after hearing the counsel representing the party by an ad interim order, restrained the defendants from telecasting the serial till 27.8.2002.
9. Aggrieved by the said order, defendants preferred Misc. Appeal No. 41 of 2002 before the District Judge and also filed Transfer Petition No. 434 of 2002 before the Supreme Court for the transfer of the case. The Supreme Court, by its order dated 28.8.2002, adjourned the case for two weeks and at the same time, directed the District Judge, in seisin of the appeal, to dispose of the same in accordance with law. The District Judge, by his order dated 6.9,2002 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 41 of 2002, declined to interfere with the order of ad interim injunction, inter alia, observing that "the trial Court is still to pass a final order after submission of the show cause by the defendants and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and varied under the provisions of Order XXXIX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It also directed the trial Court to hear the matter and pass necessary order in accordance with law expeditiously keeping in view the discussions made above within ten days from the date of the order. The appellants defendants are also directed to submit their show cause immediately in the Court below." The transfer application filed by the defendants was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court by its order dated 13.9.2002 and while doing so, it observed as follows :--
"After taking all the facts into consideration, we are not satisfied that judicial system in the State of Bihar is not incompetent to decide the cases on merits. However, it is open to the petitioners, if they are so aggrieved in any case,
to approach the higher forum within the judicial system in the State of Bihar."
10. The defendants on 16.9.2002, filed reply to the application filed by the plaintiff for grant of injunction and averred that in the whole of the plaint and temporary injunction petition, the plaintiff has alleged the serial to be aimed at squarely defaming and defiling the names and reputations of Sri Laloo Prasad Yadav, the R. J.D. Chief Hon'ble Chief Minister Smt. Rabri Devi, the family members of the aforesaid persons and the ministers of Smt. Rabri Devi Government and hence, the allegation made in the plaint comes within the category of 'private tort' not in the category of 'public tort'. According to the defendants, an action for 'private tort' can be initiated and maintained only by the person who is directly aggrieved whereas an action under 'public tort' is maintained only when the damage is caused to a whole class of people and in such case, the plaintiff is to establish special and peculiar damage caused to him so as to maintain the action for defamation. According to the defendants, the allegation made in the plaint and application for grant of temporary injunction, if at all, reveals the case of 'private tort,' with which the plaintiff is not directly concerned and as such, the suit filed by him is not maintainable. The defendants have further pleaded that the serial is nothing but a political satire and as such, a valid expression of one's independent views on the political system facing the country which is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
11. The defendants do not claim that the characters in the serial represent either Shri Laloo Prasad Yadav, Smt. Rabri Devi or for that matter any of their relatives and say that it is the plaintiff who by his own conjecture and surmises has drawn a resemblance between the characters of the serial and Shri Laloo Prasad Yadav. Smt. Rabri Devi and their family and they emphasises that, in fact, in the credit note shown at the beginning of each episode, the defendants themselves have declared as follows :--
"The serial is not based on any person living or dead and any resemblance thereto is purely co-incidental. The characters and the region shown are all fictitious.''
12. The plaintiff then filed application for amendment supported by an affidavit, inter alia, alleging that after going through the episode of serial telecast he is of the view that motive of the defendants; is to earn money by creating chaos and damaging the students, including the girl students of Bihar, the judiciary of Bihar, the education system of Bihar, It propagates that in Bihar one prefers intoxicating articles like 'Gutka' in place of substantial food. It damages the religious sentiments and mode of worship prevalent in Bihar. In the said application, it has also been averred that the serial gave the impression that the people of Bihar identify themselves as 'Ullu' and are very greedy, administrative officers are corrupt, education system has failed, and one can get degree upto Ph.D. without study. The plaintiff further averred that in the serial, some girl students are being called 'Ghotali' caste which had aggravated caste feeling. This according to the plaintiff has injured and humiliated him.
13. After considering the plea of the plaintiff and the defendants, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has prima facie case, balance of convenience also lies in his favour and in case, injunction is refused, irreparable injury shall be caused to him, by order dated 7.10.2002, made the order of ad interim injunction, absolute.
14. The defendants aggrieved by the same, preferred Misc. Appeal No. 69 of 2002 and also filed CWJC No. 12168 of 2002 before this Court assailing the aforesaid order and claiming other reliefs. This Court, by order dated 23.1.2003, disposed of the writ application with a direction to the appellate Court to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. Misc. Appeal No. 69 of 2002 filed against the order dated 7.10.2002 passed by the trial Court, making the order of interim injunction absolute, was dismissed by the XIth Additional District Judge by order dated 20.2.2005 (Annexure-16). While dismissing the appeal, the appellate Court affirmed the finding of the trial Court that plaintiff besides a prima facie case and balance of convenience lying in his favour shall also suffer irreparable injury and at the same time directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit within two months. The defendants assailed the aforesaid order by filing the present writ application and by order dated 5.11.2003, the writ application was dismissed in the following words :--
"It is well settled that remedy of writ is a remedy of last resort and when a party has other efficacious remedy available, the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is not fit to be exercised. On this ground alone, I am not inclined to enter into the merits of the case. Petitioners, if so advised, may take recourse to the remedy of revision.
Application stands dismissed in limine with the liberty aforesaid."
15. Aggrieved by the same, defendants preferred Civil Appeal No. 5538 of 2004 and the Supreme Court, by its order dated 27.8.2004, set aside the order of this Court with the following observation :--
"Learned counsel for the respondents fairly conceded that the respondents will not dispute the jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining the application under Article 227, and as the writ petitioner was dismissed without considering it on merits, we request the High Court to consider CWJC No. 2978 of 2003 on merits and dispose of it at the earliest at least within a period of two months from today. We set aside the impugned judgment for the said purpose."
16. Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, appearing on behalf of the defendants submits that the unusual hurry shown by the Court in admitting the plaint, issuing notice to the defendants and that too, through all the modes on the very day of presentation of the plaint and the application for injunction as also denying the defendants the opportunity to file the case before the grant of ad interim injunction, itself create an impression that justice has not been dispensed.
17. Mr. Sidheshwari Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate, however, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submits that in view of the nature of allegation made by the plaintiff and the averment made therein, urgent decision was required and when the defendants appeared on the first date, they were given time to file the show cause and in case, the defendants had hot chosen to file the same, they have to blame themselves for that and in such circumstance, the trial Court was left with no option than to pass the order on the prayer of the plaintiff for grant of injunction.
18. Having appreciated the rival submission, I gather an impression that the suit was processed with unusual speed. It is well settled that justice must not only be done but seem to have been done. The manner in which the suit has been processed, admitted and direction for issuance of notice was given on the very date of its presentation may create, an impression, to an innocent litigant that justice may not be done to him which may not be true but at the same time very natural, as it happens in very few cases. However, in the present case, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order on this ground alone as the defendants were later on given time, they filed their show-cause and matter was decided after hearing them and the order and ad interim injunction was made absolute.
19. Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, then contends that the conclusion arrived at by the two Courts below that the plaintiff has prima facie case, balance of convenience lies in his favour and he will suffer irreparable injury in case the injunction is refused, is perverse and hence, calls for interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
20. Mr. Sidheshwari Prasad Singh, however, contends that this Court, while exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot act as a Court of appeal and appraise evidence to come to the conclusion that the concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts below, while granting ad interim injunction and affirming the same, are erroneous. In support of the submission, he has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., AIR 2003 SC 1561, and my attention has been drawn to paragraph 7 of the judgment which reads as follows :--
"7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior Court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court oh a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior Court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision."
21. Having appreciated the rival submission, I do not have the slightest hesitation in accepting the broad submission of the learned counsel representing the plaintiff; that this Court while exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, does not act as a Court of appeal and appraise evidence but at the same time, it cannot be said as an absolute rule that in no circumstance this Court can interfere with the finding of fact. In my opinion, when the finding recorded by the Court below is perverse; meaning thereby that it had recorded the finding without considering the relevant material or on consideration of irrelevant material or a person duly instructed in law, shall not come to the said finding, nothing prevents this Court from interfering with the finding of fact in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The decision relied on by the plaintiff in the case of Sadhana Lodh (supra), does not lay down as a proposition of law that in no circumstance, this Court can interfere with the finding of fact.
22. Mr. Singh, counsel for the defendants submits that the case of the plaintiff in regard to the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury for the purpose of injunction has to be decided taking into account the fundamental right of the citizens of expression which shall obviously include the right of creativity, production and its telecast.
23. Learned counsel for the plaintiff, however, submits that the constitutional right of freedom of expression cannot be extended when it affects the public order, decency, morality leading to defamation and insult.
24. Having given my anxious consideration, I do not find any substance in the contention of the plaintiff. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees to every citizen of India freedom of speech and expression, relevant portion whereof reads as follows :--
"Article 19(1)(a).--All the citizens shall have the right :--
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;"
(2) Nothing in Sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of. India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence."
25. Although no special right has been given to the makers of serial, as in my opinion, the right conferred on the citizen of freedom of speech and expression shall include the right to express one's conviction and opinion freely through speech, writing, printing, picture or electronic media. A creative artist is free to project the picture of society or the political system or the person in politics in the manner he perceives, provided its display does not affect public order, decency or morality, defamation or incitement to an offence. It may be legitimate for the State to prohibit telecast of serial which incite violence or have a tendency to create public disorder, it cannot suppress even a very strong pungent satire of a political-leader, which has no such tendency. Legitimate creation by a creative artist cannot be suppressed on the ground of intolerance of a section of people or existence of some hostile audience. Actually this right to the citizen makes this country a democratic country. It is the capacity to create that makes human being a superior race and it is the Court's duty to protect this right zealously so that the stream of creativity is not dried due to hostility of few persons. I would rather opt for full freedom to the creative artists to project the society seen through their eyes with all the dangers involved in wrong use of that freedom, than to suppress their creativity. The right of creativity is for the public interest that individuals should possess, and, indeed exercise without impediment so long as no wrongful act is done. The importance of leaving creativity unfettered, is an important ingredient in cases for dealing most cautiously and warily with the issue of granting interim injunction.
26. Bearing in mind the aforesaid, when I proceed to examine the plea of the plaintiff, I find that the averment made in the plaint, the injunction petition and the application filed later on with affidavit that the serial has denigrated the dignity and culture of Bihar, created feeling of anger and revenge in the minds of some person casts tension and intended to character-assassination of beloved leaders of Bihar do not make out a prima facie case, when tested in the backdrop, of the fundamental right. In my opinion, prima facie, the use of expression 'Yadav' 'Sharma' of 'Lajawab Lattubaz' for LL.B., and owl as a symbol of a party in no way affect public order, decency, morality or leads to defamation or incitement. With all the emphasis at my command, I may observe here that intolerance of a section of people or existence of some hostile-audience cannot prohibit the creative artist to create.
27. To put the record straight Mr. Sidheshwari Prasad Singh, counsel representing the plaintiff submitted that the freedom of expression is not an absolute right and is subject to public order, decency, morality defamation and incitement and in support thereof, relied on a large number of decisions of the Supreme Court and other Courts. There is no difficulty in accepting the broad principle that fundamental right of freedom of expression can be restricted on the ground enumerated above but having found that the case in hand does not come within the exception aforesaid, I deem it inexpedient either to refer or analyse those decisions.
28. The principles which govern the exercise of discretion to grant injunction are to the effect, that a person who seeks temporary injunction must satisfy the Court that there is a serious question to be tried in the suit and there is probability of grant of relief prayed for i.e., prima facie case, secondly the Court's interference is necessary to protect him from that species of injury known as irreparable and thirdly the comparative mischief, which is likely to ensure from withholding the injunction will be greater than that what is likely to arise from granting it.
29. I have already found that the plaintiff has no prima facie case and that would conclude the matter but in deterrence to the submission advanced on behalf of the party, I proceed to examine the case further in regard to other ingredients. Injunction is a process by which one who is threatening to invade the legal right of another is restrained from commencing such wrongful act. Here in the present case, no right of the plaintiff is sought to be invaded and in fact it is the defendant's right of freedom of expression, which is sought to be gagged and therefore, I am of the opinion that great mischief shall ensue in case injunction is granted. The creation of a creative-artist represents the views of a large number of people and any restrain on him shall not only affect his right but right of a large number of people sharing same view. Hence, I am of the opinion that balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the plaintiff.
30. No specific or special injury has been pleaded by the plaintiff excepting his wild claim that he is Bhumihar by caste and the serial if telecast would create caste-tension between 'Bhumihar's and 'Yadavas'. The plaintiff in the garb of protecting the 'Bihari-pride' pretending to be nationalist in fact seem to be more parochial. It is relevant here to state that Mr. Singh, learned counsel representing the plaintiff emphasised that if injunction is declined, the serial will be telecast and thereafter the suit will become infructuous. If this argument is accepted, then in every such suit injunction shall have to be granted as a matter of course. This cannot be countenanced. If after telecast of serial any specific or special damage is caused to the plaintiff, nothing shall prevent the Court from awarding such damage. Thus, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has not been able to establish that it will suffer irreparable injury, in case the injunction is refused.
31. I hasten to add that in face of the provision of Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, the Courts below ought not to have acceded to the prayer of the plaintiff for grant of injunction. Section 19 of the said Act confers-power to the authorised officer to prohibit transmission of programme in public interest in case it is likely to promote, on grounds of religion, race, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religions, racial linguistic or regional groups or castes or communities or which is likely to disturb public tranquility. It is not known whether the plaintiff has resorted to this remedy or if so with what result. Civil Court may be possessed of right to adjudicate all disputes, unless restricted by law but in my opinion, when a special enactment provides for remedy, the Civil Court shall be loath and circumspect in granting injunction by interim order. The Courts below did not take into consideration this aspect of the matter at all, which had made their orders vulnerable.
32. Having found that the plaintiff has no prima facie case, balance of convenience also does not lie in his favour and will not suffer irreparable injury, the Courts below exceeded in its jurisdiction in restraining the telecast of the serial by grant of temporary injunction. Hence, this is a fit case, in which jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is fit to be exercised to correct this jurisdictional error.
33. It is relevant here to state that the appellate Court, while affirming the order of granting interim injunction directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit within two months. Mr. Singh, counsel representing the plaintiff, all the times emphasised that heaven will not fall, if the order of interim injunction is continued for two months and the trial Court impressed upon to carry out the said direction. The appellate Court had handed over the direction as back as on 20.2.2003 and although two years time is coming to pass, the suit has not moved one step forward. Not even a single witness on behalf of the plaintiff has been examined. Even if I assume that, defendants did not show adequate interest, nothing prevented the plaintiff from praying for ex parte hearing of the suit and examining his witness. Not only this an injunction which gags the creativity of an artist, a right most cherished and valuable enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, cannot be allowed by a Court, meant and established to uphold the same, even for a second.
34. Before I part with the case, a note for the pater-familias of Indian Judiciary. While disposing of Civil Appeal by order dated 27.8.2004, the Supreme Court observed for disposal of the present writ petition within two months, Hon'ble the Chief Justice, by its minute dated 14.10.2004 assigned the case to me. Thereafter, the case was listed on 15.10:2004, when notice was directed to be issued to the plaintiff. When the notice was not served, the case came up for consideration on 8.11.2004 when this Court permitted the defendants to effect personal service on him. After the personal service on the plaintiff, the case was heard on day to day basis in pursuance of the order of the Supreme Court to dispose of the writ application within two months and closed for judgment on 16.1.2005 and it took some time to dwell into the matter and that is how the delay had occurred in disposal of the writ application.
35. Needless to state that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing on the suit which shall be decided on its own merit.
36. In the result, the application is allowed and impugned orders are quashed with cost to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants which I quantify at Rs. 5000/-.
After the aforesaid judgment was pronounced, Mr. Sideshwari Pd. Singh, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff makes an oral prayer for grant of Certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court and restrain the telecast of the serial for a reasonable period, so that the plaintiff can approach the Supreme Court.
I am of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for determination and, as such, the oral prayer made by the plaintiff for grant of certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court is not fit to be granted.
As regards the prayer to restrain the telecast of the serial, I have held that it shall affect the fundamental right of the defendants hence I am not inclined to accede to this prayer also.
Prayers stand rejected.