Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2571 (MAD)

K. P. Ravichandran v. Moser Baer India Ltd.

2012-06-20

V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH

body2012
Judgment :- O.A.No.862 of 2008 1. This application has been filed to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the 1st respondent, its men, agents, servants or assigns from in any manner infringing the applicant's copyrights viz., the VCD and DVD copyrights in the films described in the schedule to the Judge's summons, pending disposal of the suit. 2. A.No.4841 of 2008 3. A.No.3708 of 2008 This application has been filed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to seize the VCD's and DVD's of the schedule mentioned films manufactured and circulated by the 1st respondent and produce the same before this Hon'ble Court. 4. For convenience, the status of the parties in the suit is referred infra. 5. The applicant in O.A.No.862 of 2008 and A.No.3708 of 2008 is the plaintiff in C.S.No.747 of 2008 and the first respondent in those applications is the first defendant in C.S.No.747 of 2008. The first defendant is the applicant in A.No.4841 of 2008 and the plaintiff is the 1st respondent in the said application. 6. Heard Mr. K. Harishankar, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. C.Uma, learned counsel for the first defendant. 7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit in his argument that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff in respect of the copy right of the plaintiff regarding 58 Tamil Cinematograph Films enlisted in the plaint and its VCD and DVD rights obtained through assignments from the defendants 2 to 20. He would further submit that the plaintiff is exploiting the copy right throughout India on the basis of the right obtained from the defendants 2 to 20. However, the first defendant is infringing the copy right of the aforesaid 58 films in a recent past. He would also submit that the first defendant has filed a suit before the High Court of Delhi in C.S.No.1625 of 2007 in respect of 66 films which comprise the present 58 films referred in the plaint and he obtained an interim injunction against the plaintiff. He would also submit that the first defendant has filed a suit before the High Court of Delhi in C.S.No.1625 of 2007 in respect of 66 films which comprise the present 58 films referred in the plaint and he obtained an interim injunction against the plaintiff. He would also submit that the plaintiff had appeared through counsel and contested the injunction application, in which the High Court of Delhi had allowed the injunction only in respect of five films viz., 1) Karagattakaran 2) Puthiya Paravai 3) Ullam Ketkume 4) Meera; and 5) Villupaatukkaran and dismissed the applications in respect of the remaining 61 films, which include the suit 58 films enlisted in the plaint. He would also submit that the said order passed in I.A.Nos.10052 and 10722 of 2007 in C.S.No.1625 of 2007 dated 21.02.2008 was confirmed in the appeal filed in F.A.O. (O.S). No.121 of 2008 filed before the said Court in its order dated 14.03.2008 and the said order became final and therefore, the right of the 58 films as sought for by the plaintiff has been prima facie found in favour of the plaintiff by the High Court of Delhi. He would also submit in his argument that the first defendant neither filed a Review Application nor any Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court and it became final and a Contempt Application No.876 of 2008 was filed and it is pending. 8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would further submit in his arguments that the agreements numbering about 24 produced by the plaintiff in the form of typed set would cover the 58 films and the said agreements would go to prove the prima facie ownership of the plaintiff. He would further submit that the suit before the Delhi High Court is still pending, however the first defendant is estopped from claiming any property right over the suit 58 films and its copy rights, since the Delhi High Court had found that the first defendant is not entitled to the copy rights of those films. He would further submit in his arguments that the first defendant in his counter had categorically admitted that he obtained the copy rights of the suit 58 films from the intermediaries, who obtained the right from the distributors. He would further submit in his arguments that the first defendant in his counter had categorically admitted that he obtained the copy rights of the suit 58 films from the intermediaries, who obtained the right from the distributors. He would also submit in his arguments that the first defendant did not produce any agreement obtained from the intermediaries and therefore, they cannot question the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit 58 films. 9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would further submit in his arguments that even though the finding of the Delhi High Court was to the effect that right as claimed by the first defendant in that suit ought to have been decided only with the help of the evidence and the said suit is still pending without any final adjudication, admittedly, the res judicata will not apply however the cause of action estoppel orissue estoppel will apply to present case and this Court can take note of the findings already reached by the High Court of Delhi in a pending proceedings on the same cause of action, in which the present suit has been filed. He would cite a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1999 (5) SCC 590 (Hope Plantations Ltd., vs. Taluk Land Board, Peermade and another) and 2005 (1) SCC 787 (Bhanu Kumar Jain vs. Archana Kumar and another) for the said principle. He would also submit in his argument that the agreements produced would go to show that the plaintiff obtained the copy rights of the suit 58 films directly from the Producer and therefore, theprima facie copy right in respect of VCDs and DVDs rights for the films would be strengthened by the orders passed by the Delhi High Court on the same cause of action regarding the title over the said 58 films in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, the prima facie case is established in favour of the plaintiff. He would further submit in his arguments that the first defendant is indulging in infringing the right of the plaintiff in respect of the suit 58 films and if he is permitted to do so, the damages likely to be caused against the plaintiff cannot be measured and it would be an irreparable loss. He would further submit in his arguments that the first defendant is indulging in infringing the right of the plaintiff in respect of the suit 58 films and if he is permitted to do so, the damages likely to be caused against the plaintiff cannot be measured and it would be an irreparable loss. He would further submit that having considered the said circumstances, this Court had granted an order of ad-interim injunction, which was subsequently ordered till further orders and it is existing. He would further submit that if the said ad-interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff is not made absolute, the plaintiff would be put into heavy loss and much hardship, which cannot be compensated. He would further submit in his argument that the balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff only and not in favour of the first defendant. Therefore, he would request the Court to grant an order of temporary injunction by making the ad-interim injunction already granted against the first defendant absolute. 10. The learned senior counsel Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram appearing on behalf of the first defendant would submit in her argument that for every cinematograph film, the first owner will be the producer and when he assigned or transferred title or interest in the negative rights along with VCD and DVD rights, and copy rights, then it will be transferred to other persons including either distributors or an assignee and those persons can further assign the said right to third parties and the copy right will accrue to the transferee, who is in possession of the said rights as per the provisions of Sections 17 to 19 of the Copy Rights Act. She would further submit in her arguments that the said copy right may be either wholly or partially assigned and according to the said transfer, the transferee will get the right and it can be done through an assignment and also under Section 19 of the Copy Rights Act. She would further submit that the plaintiff has come forward with the case of claiming right over the suit 58 films and also seek for declaration regarding his copy right and therefore, he has to prove what he pleads in the plaint. She would further submit that the plaintiff has come forward with the case of claiming right over the suit 58 films and also seek for declaration regarding his copy right and therefore, he has to prove what he pleads in the plaint. She would also submit that once the Producer has assigned the copy right regarding VCD and DVD of any film to third party, he cannot assign once again the same right to any other person and the plaintiff is in such a contingency that he had got assignments after it was parted by the Producers. She would also submit that the plaintiff cannot establish his right merely by producing the agreements which required proper stamp duty under Section 35 of the Stamps Act and it could be established only at the time of full fledged trial and at present, the plaintiff has not established any prima facie right over the suit 58 films and therefore, the claim of the plaintiff for the grant of interim injunction may not be available. She would also submit in her argument that the finding of the Delhi High Court in I.A.Nos.10052 and 10722 of 2007 in C.S.No.1625 of 2007 will not be a res judicata for this Court and this Court can independently decide the right of the plaintiff over 58 suit films and come to a conclusion. 11. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the first defendant would cite a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003 (8) SCC 204 (Punit Rai ..vs.. Dinesh Chaudhary) for the principle that the plaintiff has to prove his case and cannot depend upon the weakness of the case of other party. For the same principle, she has also cited yet another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1998 (4) SCC 539 (Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority ..vs.. Shiv Saraswati Iron & Steel Re-rolling Mills). She would also submit in her argument that the finality reached in a judgment in an earlier case between the same parties for the same cause of action only form res judicata and when admittedly, the suit is still pending before the Delhi High Court and no finality has been reached in respect of the proprietary right over the suit 58 films, the finding reached by the Delhi High Court cannot be considered as res judicata to the present issue. In support of her argument, she would rely upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1998 (7) SCC 327 (K.Muthuswami Gounder ..vs.. N.Palaniappa Gounder). Therefore, she would submit in her arguments that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the judgment of the Delhi High Court would bind the parties would not be available. She would also submit that the agreements produced by the plaintiff did not establish any prima facie case and the orders passed by the Delhi High Court cannot be helpful to the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case and in the said circumstances, the plaintiff failed in his attempt to prove a prima facie case. She would also submit in her argument that the mere production of censorship certificate of the films would not in any way help the plaintiff that he has got prima facie right over VCD and DVD of the said films. She would also submit that the documents produced by the plaintiff would not confer or assign any right in favour of the plaintiff, but the claim of the first defendant was only DVD rights and the claim made by the plaintiff was towards VCD rights and there is a vast difference in between VCD and DVD and therefore, there cannot be any injunction passed in favour of the plaintiff against the first defendant. 12. Therefore, the learned senior counsel for the first defendant would request the Court that the injunction as sought for by the plaintiff may be refused and there cannot be any prejudice for the plaintiff, since he has not established any prima facie right over the suit 58 films in respect of his alleged copy right in VCD and DVD and therefore, there cannot be any irreparable loss likely to cause to the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted or the ad-interim injunction already granted is not ordered to be extended. She would, therefore, request the Court to dismiss the applications filed by the plaintiff. 13. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. 14. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the first defendant and other defendants 2 to 20 for the following reliefs:- This application has been filed to vacate the interim injunction granted against the applicant/1st respondent in O.A.No.862 of 2008 in C.S.No.747 of 2008 dated 08.08.2008. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. 14. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the first defendant and other defendants 2 to 20 for the following reliefs:- This application has been filed to vacate the interim injunction granted against the applicant/1st respondent in O.A.No.862 of 2008 in C.S.No.747 of 2008 dated 08.08.2008. a. For a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the copy rights viz., VCD and DVD copyrights in the schedule mentioned films; b. For a permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant, its men, agents, servants or assigns from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's copyrights viz., the VCD and DVD copyrights in the films described in the schedule to the plaint in any manner whatsoever; c. For costs of the suit; d. For such further or other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. 15. The claim of the plaintiff was that he had obtained the copy rights of the VCD and DVD in respect of the 58 Tamil cinematographic films as described in the schedule of the plaint from the defendants 2 to 20, who assigned the copy rights to the plaintiff. From the said date of assignments made by the defendants 2 to 20 in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was stated to have exploited the said right by manufacturing and selling VCDs and DVDs of the various suit films. However, the right of the plaintiff is said to have been interfered by the first defendant, who recently produced VCDs and DVDs of various suit cinematographic films, to which the plaintiff alone is entitled to as stated in the plaint. The plaintiff, who had stated that he has got copy rights regarding VCDs and DVDs of the said 58 Tamil cinematographic films has to necessarily establish a prima facie case for the purpose of granting an order of interim injunction. In an earlier occasion, when the suit was moved, this Court had passed an ex parte order of ad-interim injunction on 08.08.2008 on satisfying a prima facie case and regarding balance of convenience in favour of the applicant/plaintiff. Subsequently, this Court had extended the said order on various occasions and on 14.10.2008, the said ad-interim injunction already granted was extended until further orders. Subsequently, this Court had extended the said order on various occasions and on 14.10.2008, the said ad-interim injunction already granted was extended until further orders. Therefore, the first defendant has filed an application in A.No.4841 of 2008 for vacating the order of ad-interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff. 16. No doubt, the plaintiff who has come to Court for the relief of injunction has to show or establish a prima facie case. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1998 (4) SCC 539 (Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority vs. Shiv Saraswati Iron & Steel Re-rolling Mills) had laid down the said principle as follows:- "10. ...... The plaintiff/appellant must succeed or fail on his own case and cannot take advantage of weakness in the defendant/respondent's case to get a decree." 17. A similar view has been expressed in a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003 (8) SCC 204 (Punit Rai vs. Dinesh Chaudhary) as laid down in para - 15 would be as follows:- "15. ....... The appellant, it was held, cannot be permitted to derive strength from the weakness of the case of the other party." 18. No doubt, it is clear that the settled principle would be that the plaintiff has to establish his own case on the pleadings made by him and cannot rely upon the weakness of other party in order to get a decree or an order. Therefore, we have to see whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for the grant of an order of injunction. The plaintiff has produced the documents in the form of typed set containing the agreements entered into between the defendants 2 to 20 in respect of the suit 58 films. In the typed set, all those agreements have been referred to as an assignments obtained from the assignors. Whether those assignors were the producers and capable of transferring the copy right in favour of the plaintiff could be considered only in a full fledged trial with the support of oral evidence adduced. For the present, we have to see whether those agreements obtained from the defendants 2 to 20 would go to show a prima facie case that the plaintiff had obtained the rights in respect of the VCDs and DVDs of those films covered by the entire copy right of those films. 19. For the present, we have to see whether those agreements obtained from the defendants 2 to 20 would go to show a prima facie case that the plaintiff had obtained the rights in respect of the VCDs and DVDs of those films covered by the entire copy right of those films. 19. In the additional typed set (Vol.II) also, the plaintiff has produced agreements as well as censor board certificates in respect of 52 films out of 58 suit films. The same rule is applicable for those agreements produced in the additional typed set also. Whether the production of the agreements could be considered sufficient to prove the prima facie case of the plaintiff, is a question to be answered primarily. 20. Admittedly, there is a suit pending before the High Court of Delhi in C.S.No.1625 of 2007 filed by the first defendant as plaintiff against the plaintiff herein shown as the first defendant. In the said suit, two applications have been filed by the first defendant herein for passing temporary injunction in respect of 66 Tamil cinematographic films in respect of the VCD and DVD rights claimed by the first defendant herein, in that suit. The High Court of Delhi had heard the arguments of both sides and passed an order on 21.02.2008 dismissing the said applications except for five films viz., 1) Karagattakaran 2) Puthiya Paravai 3) Ullam Ketkume 4) Meera; and 5) Villupaatukkaran. The suit 58 films were also included in the said suit and the right claimed by the first defendant herein in that suit was negatived and temporary injunction was not granted against the plaintiff herein, in that suit. I have also perused the said order produced in Pages No.126 to 131 of the second typed set. However, the first defendant herein has preferred an appeal before the same court in F.A.O. (O.S). No.121 of 2008 and an order was passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Court in the said suit on 14.03.2008 confirming the order of the learned single Judge made on 21.02.2008. However, liberty was given to the first defendant herein to prefer a Review of the order in refusing the injunction in respect of those films. The first defendant did not prefer any Review before the learned single Judge and the suit alone is now pending disposal before the said Court. However, liberty was given to the first defendant herein to prefer a Review of the order in refusing the injunction in respect of those films. The first defendant did not prefer any Review before the learned single Judge and the suit alone is now pending disposal before the said Court. Therefore, I could see that the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Delhi in I.A.Nos.10052 and 10722 of 2007 in C.S.No.1625 of 2007 on 21.12.2008 has become final, subject to the trial of the suit. 21. According to the learned senior counsel appearing for the first defendant, unless an order became final, it cannot act as res judicata against an identical issue. Reliance was placed by the learned senior counsel on 1998 (7) SCC 327 (K.Muthuswami Gounder vs. N. Palaniappa Gounder). The relevant passage would run follows:- 12. When the entire matter was still in appeal and any part of the finding could be varied by the appellate court, it is idle to contend that the same had become final. So also when the matter had not attained finality and was still in dispute, the principle of res judicata could not arise. In some cases, finding recorded at an earlier stage will operate as res judicata, if such finding had become final. In the aforesaid judgment, it is very clearly laid down that until finality is reached, the order passed in an earlier suit will not act as res judicata in a subsequent suit. Rightly, in the earlier suit pending before the High Court of Delhi in C.S.No.1625 of 2007 the decision reached by the said Court in the Interlocutory Applications have become final, but they are subject to a decision to be reached in the Court, as the suit is pending. Therefore, the finding reached in the Interlocutory Application stage may not constitute as res judicata, to be considered in this application. 22. However the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, would distinguish the doctrine of res judicata with the issue estoppel and cause of action estoppel. The principle laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1999 (5) SCC 590 (Hope Plantations Ltd., vs. Taluk Land Board, Peermade and another) would be as follows:- "26. The principle laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1999 (5) SCC 590 (Hope Plantations Ltd., vs. Taluk Land Board, Peermade and another) would be as follows:- "26. It is settled law that the principles of estoppel and res judicata are based on public policy and justice. Doctrine of res judicata is often treated as a branch of the law of estoppel though these two doctrines differ in some essential particulars. Rule of res judicata prevents the parties to a judicial determination from litigating the same question over again even though the determination may even be demonstratedly wrong. When the proceedings have attained finality, parties are bound by the judgment and are estopped from questioning it. They cannot litigate again on the same cause of action nor can they litigate any issue which was necessary for decision in the earlier litigation. These two aspects are "cause of action estoppel" and "issue estoppel". These two terms are of common law origin. Again, once an issue has been finally determined, parties cannot subsequently in the same suit advance arguments or adduce further evidence directed to showing that the issue was wrongly determined. Their only remedy is to approach the higher forum if available. The determination of the issue between the parties gives rise to, as noted above, an issue estoppel. It operates in any subsequent proceedings in the same suit in which the issue had been determined. It also operates in subsequent suits between the same parties in which the same issue arises. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure contains provisions of res judicata but these are not exhaustive of the general doctrine of res judicata. Legal principles of estoppel and res judicata are equally applicable in proceedings before administrative authorities as they are based on public policy and justice." 23. It has been reiterated in yet another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2005 (1) SCC 787 (Bhanu Kumar Jain vs. Archana Kumar and another) which would be as follows:- "29. There is a distinction between "issue estoppel" and res judicata". (See Thoday v. Thoday) 30. Res judicata debars a court from exercising its jurisdiction to determine the lis if it has attained finality between the parties whereas the doctrine issue estoppel is invoked against the party. There is a distinction between "issue estoppel" and res judicata". (See Thoday v. Thoday) 30. Res judicata debars a court from exercising its jurisdiction to determine the lis if it has attained finality between the parties whereas the doctrine issue estoppel is invoked against the party. If such an issue is decided against him, he would be estopped from raising the same in the latter proceeding. The doctrine of res judicata creates a different kind of estoppel viz., estoppel by accord. 31. In a case of this nature, however, the doctrine of "issue estoppel" as also "cause of action estoppel" may arise. In Thoday, Lord Diplock held : (All ER p.352 B-D) " .... 'cause of action estoppel', is that which prevents a party to an action from asserting or denying, as against the other party, the existence of a particular cause of action, the non-existence or existence of which has been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in previous litigation between the same parties. If cause of action was determined to exist i.e., judgment was given on it, it is said to be merged in the judgment .... If it was determined not to exist, the unsuccessful plaintiff can no longer assert that it does; he is estopped per rem judicatam" 32. The said dicta was followed in Barber v. Staffordshire County Council. A cause of action estoppel arises where in two different proceedings identical issues are raised, in which event, the latter proceedings between the same parties shall be dealt with similarly as was done in the previous proceedings. In such an event, the bar is absolute in relation to all points decided save and except allegation of fraud and collusion. (See C.(A Minor) v. Hackney London Borough Council)." 24. On a careful understanding of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I could see that there is no second thought that the res judicata would be attracted only if the lis has attained a finality in between the parties on the same issue. But the cause of action estoppel will arise where in two different proceedings, identical issues are raised in between same parties and in which an event, the later proceedings between the same parties shall be dealt with as similar as done in the previous proceedings. 25. But the cause of action estoppel will arise where in two different proceedings, identical issues are raised in between same parties and in which an event, the later proceedings between the same parties shall be dealt with as similar as done in the previous proceedings. 25. In the present case, admittedly the case pending before this Court is for a similar claim in between the parties like that of a suit filed by the first defendant as plaintiff in C.S.No.1625 of 2007 before the High Court of Delhi. The same 58 (fifty eight) Tamil cinematographic films are also the subject matter of the said suit except other 8 (eight) Tamil cinematographic films, which are not subject matter of this suit. However, the copy right of the VCD and DVD in respect of 58 films subjected in this suit were dealt with in the suit in C.S.No.1625 of 2007 before the Delhi High Court. In the said suit, an application for injunction filed by the first defendant as applicant the right of the first defendant was negatived, however prima facie and the right of the plaintiff herein, who was the first defendant in that suit was prima facie found to be better than that of the plaintiff therein (first defendant herein) and therefore, the injunction was refused in favour of the first defendant herein (plaintiff therein). The said finding of the learned single Judge was upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the appeal in F.A.O. (O.S). No.121 of 2008. However, the said prima facie finding has to be confirmed in a full fledged trial in the said suit. Therefore, the claim of res judicata cannot be applied in this case. As the cause of action and the parties are one and the same in respect of 58 films, the subject here, certainly the cause of action estoppel would operate. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court what was dealt with in between the parties in an earlier proceedings, the same should be done similarly in the later proceedings and it would support the case of the plaintiff herein. Only exception for the application of such a principle is an allegation of fraud and collusion. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court what was dealt with in between the parties in an earlier proceedings, the same should be done similarly in the later proceedings and it would support the case of the plaintiff herein. Only exception for the application of such a principle is an allegation of fraud and collusion. As far as this case is concerned, there is no allegation of fraud or collusion in between the parties and therefore, this Court has to necessarily found the prima facie case of the plaintiff, as found by the Delhi High Court which is the previous proceedings had in between the same parties in C.S.No.1625 of 2007. Therefore, a prima facie case already found in favour of the plaintiff herein in the previous proceedings had before the Delhi High Court would support, the agreements executed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the copy rights regarding VCDs and DVDs of the suit 58 films and the plaintiff has come forward on his own strength to establish a prima facie case. The plaintiff had also stated about the findings reached by the High Court of Delhi in respect of his copy right over the suit 58 films and therefore, I could see that the prima facie case established by the plaintiff in this application has not been shattered by the first defendant by disproving the case of the plaintiff. 26. The plaintiff has apprehended that the first defendant would indulge in manufacturing, circulating and selling the VCDs and DVDs of the suit 58 films without any right and if he has done so, the copy right obtained by the plaintiff from the lawful owner would be defeated and the loss likely to have sustained could not be measured and it would be an irreparable loss, in the event no injunction has been granted or ad-interim injunction granted is vacated. No doubt the manufacturing and selling of the VCDs and DVDs cannot be controlled nor measured except by way of the accounts produced by the first defendant, in case the Court is directing the first defendant to do so. In that event, no purpose will be served. It would be a colossal loss, which cannot be reclaimed by the plaintiff even through an order of Court has been issued to render true accounts. In that event, no purpose will be served. It would be a colossal loss, which cannot be reclaimed by the plaintiff even through an order of Court has been issued to render true accounts. Therefore, in the event of the injunction is not granted, the plaintiff is likely to sustain an irreparable loss which cannot be compensated. Per contra, if injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant succeeds in the suit, naturally the defendant can seek for damages. Therefore, I could see that the balance of convenience is only in favour of granting an order of injunction and it is in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, I am of the considered view that ad-interim injunction already granted by this Court on 08.08.2008 which was extended until further orders on 14.10.2008 has to be made absolute by granting an order of temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit. 27. For the reasons held above, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff is entitled for temporary injunction as sought for against the first defendant till the disposal of the suit. Accordingly, the application in O.A.No.862 of 2008 is ordered. Consequently, the application in A.No.4841 of 2008 to vacate the interim injunction order is dismissed. As regards the Application in A.No.3708 of 2008 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, the same has to be disposed of along with the suit.