JUDGMENT Mr. Rajiv Narain Raina, J. (Oral) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. On hearing them, I am prima facie of the view that it would be needless to express any opinion on the merits of the case since I find that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon dated 17.10.2011 is non-speaking, laconic, cryptic and does not disclose the process of reasoning which led to grant of injunction order under Order 39 Rule 1-2 CPC. The Trial Court has, upto para. 5 of the order, narrated the pleadings of the plaintiff and defendant No.1, defendants No.2 and 3 being ex parte. 3. There is no reasoning, whatsoever, contained from para. 1 to 5 and the only reason given for allowing the application is contained in para. 6 and 7. They are reproduced as under : - “6. A perusal of record clearly establishes that plaintiffs are holding copyrights in respect of numerous films, audio-visual sound recordings, underlying lyrics and musical components in said audio visuals songs. The deeds of assignment in respect of the above mentioned films and other works have been placed on record. The record also goes to show that the works of the plaintiffs is being reproduced and being communicated to the public by the defendants without the permission or consent of the plaintiffs. A demonstration of the same has also shown on laptop in the court by learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 7. In view of the averments made in the plaint, the submissions made by the counsel for the plaintiffs and the documents placed on record, this court is of the opinion that plaintiffs have made out a prima-facie case for grant of an interim injunction in their favour for the protection of their infringement of copyrights under Section 51(a)(ii) of the Act, even though, it is exparte on account of absence of respondents No.2&3. Accordingly, the defendants and/or its officers, servants, agents and representatives are restrained from re-producing, adapting, disturbing, communicating or transmitting in any manner on their websites or otherwise the cinematograph films, sound recordings/or the underlying literary or musical works of the plaintiff, in which plaintiff claims copyright, without obtaining an appropriate licence from the plaintiff till next order. Let plaintiffs to comply provisions of Order XXXIX, Rule 3, CPC, within three days from receiving the copy of this order.” 4. Let plaintiffs to comply provisions of Order XXXIX, Rule 3, CPC, within three days from receiving the copy of this order.” 4. Section 51(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957 has been read out before this Court and the same is reproduced below : - “51(a)(ii) permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that such communication to the public would be an infringement of copyright.” Since the material on record has not been prima facie assessed to reach the conclusion whether injunction deserved to be granted or not, I set aside the impugned order dated 17.10.2011. The case is remanded to the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon to pass a fresh order after fully comprehending the subject matter and the dimensions of the content of submissions made by both the parties in the pleadings and orally. In case, demonstration on laptop is exhibited by both the parties, then atleast this Court should know what weighed in the mind of the trial Judge to decide the application for temporary injunction. The demonstration before the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon has been brought to naught since the trial Judge has not made any apparent effort to say what he saw, what he understood and what was required of him to decide the case on principles applicable to grant of an injunction. The trial Judge would carefully understand the roles and connection of both defendant No.1 and the copyright holder, i.e., the plaintiff. 5. Mr.N.K.Bhardwaj has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court passed in Bajaj Auto Limited v. TVS Motor Company Limited; (2009) 9 SCC 797 particularly para. 9 of the judgment. The trial Court would keep that in mind to give effect to the directions issued by the Supreme Court within the constraints of its Board. 6. The petition stands disposed of with the above observations. The fresh order be passed as soon as possible and before proceeding further with the case. ---------0.B.S.0------------