Mrs. Esther Ananthamurthy & Ors.etc. Vs. Smt. Sameka Gopalagowda Shataveri & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Petition(s) For Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 911 & 3936 of 1988.
(From the judgment and order dated 2.12.87 of the High Court of Karnataka in Misc. First Appeal No. 3027/87.)
(From the judgment and order dated 2.12.87 of the High Court of Karnataka in Misc. First Appeal No. 3027/87.)
Petitioner: Mrs. Esther Ananthamurthy & Ors.etc.
Respondent: Smt. Sameka Gopalagowda Shataveri & Ors.
Apeal: Petition(s) For Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 911 & 3936 of 1988.
(From the judgment and order dated 2.12.87 of the High Court of Karnataka in Misc. First Appeal No. 3027/87.)
(From the judgment and order dated 2.12.87 of the High Court of Karnataka in Misc. First Appeal No. 3027/87.)
Judges: K.N.SINGH & M.H.KANIA,JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 03, 1988
Appearances:
Mr. Mohan Katarki, Miss Rani Jethmalani and Mr. D.Nanjunda Reddy Advocates for the Petitioners.
Mr. P.K.Manohar, Mr. Ravi Kumar Verma, Mr. R.B.Mehrotra, Mr. E.C.Vidya Sagar and K.R.Nagaraja, Advocates for the Respondents.
Head Note:
EXHIBITION OF THE FILM “AWASTHE” ALLOWED.
Film “Awasthe” – Injunction order against exhibition of the film set aside – Permission to screen the film granted subject to certain modifications.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Special leave granted.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having seen the disputed portion of film “Awasthe”, we are of the opinion that the appeal must be allowed.
3. There is no dispute that the Book “Awasthe” was published in 1978 and since then it has been in wide circulation for the last ten years without any demur by the plaintiffs. The disputed film “Awasthe” which is largely based on the novel was released only in September, 1987 for public exhibition. The plaintiff/respondents filed the suit only after the film was released for exhibition before that they had not initiated any action against the publication and circulation of the novel although it was widely circulated. During the course of hearing, the appellant with a view to alley misgivings raised on behalf of the appellants without prejudice to their case in the suit made a statement that they will exhibit the following statement at the beginning of their film “Awasthe”:
“This film is a pure fiction and any resemblance to characters therein are only coincidental. Any representation to the contrary in the past may be ignored.”
The appellants have further agreed to make the following modifications in the film:
1. The word ‘unfair’ (anuchita) will be substituted for the word ‘cheating’ (mosa) in the scene relating to the dialogue between Gouri Deshpande and Krishnappagowda, hero of the film.
2. One of the scenes relating to drinking of wine by Krishnappagowda, the hero of the film will be deleted.
3. The following portion of the dialogue between Gouri Deshpande and Krishnappagowda will be modified as under:
“I will send for them. Nagesh—
bring Seetha and Putti here.”
will be substituted by the following:
“I will send for them. Nagesh—”
Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 U.R.Ananthamurthy reiterates his undertaking that during the pendency of the suit before the trial court he will not bring about any re-print or further edition of the book.
4. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we find no justification for the continuance of the injunction order against the exhibition of the film. We therefore set aside the order of the High Court and permit the exhibition of the film “Awashte” subject to the aforesaid modifications. This order and the offer made by the parties will not prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties in the suit.
5. The trial Court is directed to decide the suit at an early date.
6. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
1. Special leave granted.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having seen the disputed portion of film “Awasthe”, we are of the opinion that the appeal must be allowed.
3. There is no dispute that the Book “Awasthe” was published in 1978 and since then it has been in wide circulation for the last ten years without any demur by the plaintiffs. The disputed film “Awasthe” which is largely based on the novel was released only in September, 1987 for public exhibition. The plaintiff/respondents filed the suit only after the film was released for exhibition before that they had not initiated any action against the publication and circulation of the novel although it was widely circulated. During the course of hearing, the appellant with a view to alley misgivings raised on behalf of the appellants without prejudice to their case in the suit made a statement that they will exhibit the following statement at the beginning of their film “Awasthe”:
“This film is a pure fiction and any resemblance to characters therein are only coincidental. Any representation to the contrary in the past may be ignored.”
The appellants have further agreed to make the following modifications in the film:
1. The word ‘unfair’ (anuchita) will be substituted for the word ‘cheating’ (mosa) in the scene relating to the dialogue between Gouri Deshpande and Krishnappagowda, hero of the film.
2. One of the scenes relating to drinking of wine by Krishnappagowda, the hero of the film will be deleted.
3. The following portion of the dialogue between Gouri Deshpande and Krishnappagowda will be modified as under:
“I will send for them. Nagesh—
bring Seetha and Putti here.”
will be substituted by the following:
“I will send for them. Nagesh—”
Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 U.R.Ananthamurthy reiterates his undertaking that during the pendency of the suit before the trial court he will not bring about any re-print or further edition of the book.
4. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we find no justification for the continuance of the injunction order against the exhibition of the film. We therefore set aside the order of the High Court and permit the exhibition of the film “Awashte” subject to the aforesaid modifications. This order and the offer made by the parties will not prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties in the suit.
5. The trial Court is directed to decide the suit at an early date.
6. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
