Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.- Heard Sri K.R.Sirohi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amit Prasad and Sri M.K. Singh for the petitioner. 2. Suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent for declaration and permanent injunction to restrain the defendant-petitioner on the ground that it has no right to issue licenses or claim payment of license fees in relation to the broadcasting works and have no copyright in respect of any work comprising of and/or underlying the sound recording. A declaration was also sought that plaintiff is not obliged to obtain license from the defendant or to make payment of any fees to the defendant in relation to broadcast works by the plaintiff and threat made by the defendant to the representatives of the plaintiff is wrongful and the plaintiff will not be infringing any legal right of the defendant. A decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant-petitioner and its members from making any wrongful threats or initiating any proceeding was also claimed. An application for temporary injunction was moved. 3. Trial court vide order dated 12.8.2009 granted ex parte temporary injunction restraining the defendant-petitioner from making any illegal demand and giving any threat of legal proceedings. It was clarified in the said injunction order that in case the defendant-petitioner is making any legal demand or any lawful legal proceedings are being initiated, the interim order would not have any effect on the same. The order is alleged to have been modified ex parte behind the back of the defendant-petitioner on 23.12.2009 further restraining the defendant-petitioner from making any demand from the plaintiff-respondent. An application under Order VII Rule 10 C.P.C. was also filed by the defendant-petitioner. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that only after injunction order was modified by the aforesaid ex parte order then the defendant-petitioner came to know about the proceedings from a letter dated 31.1.2010 written by the counsel of of the plaintiff-respondent and thereafter, they entered appearance and raised objection with respect to the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge to entertain the suit and injunction order, in view of Section 62 of The Copyright Act, 1957. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that without deciding the objection with respect to the jurisdiction and the application under Order VII Rule 10, the trial court is only extending the interim order, which is resulting into serious and irreparable loss to the defendant-petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that without deciding the objection with respect to the jurisdiction and the application under Order VII Rule 10, the trial court is only extending the interim order, which is resulting into serious and irreparable loss to the defendant-petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that suit under Chapter 12 of The Copyright Act, 1957 is only maintainable before the District Judge and the Civil Judge has no jurisdiction. Reliance in support of the contention has been placed on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of S. Dharmalinga Nayakar vs. D. Balasubramania Ayyar and another, AIR 1937 Madras 94, Everest Pictures Circuit, Salem vs. S. Karuppanna, AIR 1982 Madras 244 as well as K.I. George and another vs. C. Cheriyan and others, AIR 1986 Kerala 12 wherein it has been held that under the Copyright Act every every suit or other civil proceedings regarding infringement of the copy right shall be instituted and tried in the district court which means District Judge and the Civil Judge/City Civil Court has no jurisdiction. 5. Prima-facie there appears to be force in the submission and the matter needs scrutiny. 6. Issue notice to the respondent, who may file counter affidavit. 7. Steps be taken by registered post within ten days. 8. Office shall issue notices returnable at an early date. 9. List for admission after service of notice on the respondent. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances, till the next date of listing, effect and operation of the impugned order dated 12.8.2009 as modified on 23.12.2009 shall remain stayed. 11. This order shall not be treated as stay of the proceedings of the suit and the court is free to proceed with the objection and the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order VII Rule 10 in accordance with law.