Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Subhash Kapoor vs Chandrabhan Singh Rathore … on 30 May, 2025
Author: Ashok Kumar Jain
Bench: Ashok Kumar Jain
[2025:RJ-JP:22891]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 217/2024
1. Subhash Kapoor, Producer Film Jolly L.L.B-3, Disney With
Cape Of Goods Firms Currently Shooting Place D.R.M.
Office Mall Road, Ajmer Temporarily Staying At Pratap
Palace Hotel, Ajmer Permanent Resident Of 503/504,
Building No. 16, Indradarshan Phase-1, Oshiwara,
Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053
2. Akshay Kumar Bhatia, Actor Film Jolly L.L.B.-3, Through
Disney With Cape Of Goods Films Currently Shooting
Place D.R.M. Office Mall Road Ajmer Temporarily Staying
At Pratap Palace Hotel, Ajmer Permanent Resident Of G-2,
Ground Floor, Prime Beach, Gandhigram Road, Juhu, Vile
Parle (W), Mumbai-400049
3. Arshad Warsi, Actor Film Jolly LLB-3, Through Disney
With Cape Of Goods Films Currently Shooting Place
D.R.M. Office Mall Road Ajmer Temporarily Staying At
Pratap Palace Hotel, Ajmer Permanent Resident Of 10
Casa Zen, Shantiniketan Hsg Soc, Air-India, Colony, Yari-
Road, Versova, Mumbai-400061
----Petitioners/Defendants
Versus
1. Chandrabhan Singh Rathore, President District Bar
Association Ajmer
----Respondent/Plaintiff
2. Divisional Rail Manager, DRM Office, Ajmer
3. State Government, Through District Collector, Ajmer
4. SHO Police Station, Civil Lines, Ajmer
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Agarwal, senior advocate
with Ms. Purvi Mathur,
Mr. Kushagra Sharma,
Ms. Yaadvi Dhawan,
Ms. Snehima Jauhari and Mr. Adhiraj
Modi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kapoor
Mr. Nitin Sharma, through VC
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 01:10:17 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:22891] (2 of 19) [CR-217/2024]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Order
30/05/2025
REPORTABLE
1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioners Subhash
Kapoor, Akshay Kumar Bhatia and Arshad Warsi aggrieved
from order dated 27.05.2024 in civil suit No.44/2024, [(CIS)
157/2024] passed by learned Civil Judge, Ajmer City (north),
Ajmer whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with
Section 151 C.P.C. dated 10.05.2024 filed by present petitioners
defendant Nos. 1 to 3 was dismissed.
2. Learned senior advocate while relying upon grounds of
revision petition submitted that petitioners are engaged in
cinematographic work titled as "Jolly LLB-3" and as part of
production schedule, they decided to have shooting in the
premises of DRM Office, Ajmer from 25.04.2024 to 10.05.2024
after procuring necessary permissions and approval. He further
submitted that respondent No.1 plaintiff has filed a civil suit for
injunction on untenable grounds particularly on apprehension that
the content of script is potentially defamatory in nature and
prejudicial to the reputation of lawyers and Judges. He further
submitted that all kind of cinematographic activity is regulated by
the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of
1952') which provides for constitution and regulatory network of
Film Certification Board to examine any documentary or film or
advertisement and also to issue a Certificate for exhibition. He
further submitted that the Act of 1952 is itself a Code which
provides for redressal of grievances and appellate authority to
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 01:10:17 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:22891] (3 of 19) [CR-217/2024]
aggrieved persons. He further submitted that petitioners are
producer/actor/maker of films in commercial nature and they are
already incurring expenses of crores of rupees for commercial
work. He also submitted that in case, either the project is
abandoned or stalled for any reason, then the petitioners have to
incur huge losses resulting in financial bankruptcy. He further
submitted that at present, the film is in production stage and
before being submitted to the Board under the Act of 1952, no
part is made available to public, therefore the plaintiff has filed a
suit at very pre-mature stage. He further submitted that neither
there is any cause of action nor the suit is maintainable before a
Civil Court and same is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule
11 (a) & (d) of CPC.
3. Learned Senior Advocate has further placed reliance upon
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Ramisetty
Venkatanna Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb and Ors 2023 SCC
Online SC 521, Eldeco Housing and Industries Ltd. Vs.
Ashok Vidyarthi 2023 SCC Online SC 1612, T. Arvindanam
Vs. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467, Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai
Kalyanji Bhansai (2020) SCC Online 563, Madanuri Sri
Rama Chandra Murthy Vs. Syed Jalal (2017) 13 SCC 174,
KUM. Geetha, D/o Late Krishna and Ors. Vs.
Nanjundasyamy and Ors. (SLP (C) No.8147/2016), Om
Prakash Srivastava Vs. Union of India (2006) 6 SCC 207,
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable Vs. Asstt. Charity Commr. (2004) 3
SCC 137, ITC Ltd. Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate (1998) 2
SCC 70, Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 Suppl SCC
315 and Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Machado
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 01:10:17 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:22891] (4 of 19) [CR-217/2024]
Brothers and Ors. (2004) 11 SCC 168 and submitted that if a
suit is filed without accrual of any cause of action or at pre-mature
stage, then same is liable to be rejected. He also submitted the
trial court is duty bound to consider the judgments of Hon'ble
Supreme Court and Co-ordinate Benches of this Court to decide
the objections of petitiners but it has failed in its duties to decide
the application.
4. He further placed reliance upon judgment in case of The
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and Ors. Vs.
Netlfix Entertainment Services India LLP and Ors. (Delhi
High Court CS(OS) No.546/2024), Dr. L. Ramachandran Vs.
K. Ramesh (Madras High Court SCC (2015) 4 LW 585),
Rushab Ship International LLC and Ors. Vs Bunkers
Onboard the Ship M.V. African Eagle Others No. 1591 of
2013 (Bombay High Court (2014) 4 Bom CR 269), Ashutosh
Dube Vs. Netflix, Inc. and Ors. (Delhi High Court (2020)
269 DLT 271) and Akshay Kumar Vs. State (Rajasthan High
Court 2021 SCC Online Raj 4262) and submitted that an
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is required to be decided
at earliest so that the petitioners defendants may not face rigor of
trial.
5. Learned Senior Advocate further placed reliance upon
judgments in cases of Babuji Rawji Shah Vs. Hussain Zaidi
2022 SCC Online SC 1892, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs, Sanjay
Leela Bhansali (2018) 1 SCC 770, Nachiketa Walhekar Vs.
Central Board of Film Certification (2018) 1 SCC 778, Anand
Bazaar Patrika (P) ITD. And Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal
and Anr. (2005) 2 CCR 593 and G. Narsimhan, G. Kasturi
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 01:10:17 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:22891] (5 of 19) [CR-217/2024]
and Gopalan Ors. Vs. T.V. Chokkappa (1972) 2 SCC 680 and
submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the issue of
defamation under the Indian law and issued certain guidelines to
consider the case of defamation. He further submitted that from
the pleadings in the plaint, no case of defamation is made out,
therefore the trial court has committed serious error while
registering a plaint.
6. Learned senior advocate has further referred judgments in
case of Shilpesh Chaudhary and Anr. Vs. Union of India and
Ors. (Delhi High Court (2013) 199 DLT (CN B) 10 (DB),
Smt. Aruna Asaf Ali and Ors. Vs. Purna Narayan Sinha
(Gauhati High Court 1983 SCC online Gau 35) and
Government Advocate Vs. Gopal Bandhu (Patna High Court)
1922 Cri. LJ 433) and submitted that from bare reading of
plaint, no case for defamation is made out and the plaintiff has
filed a suit without disclosing a cause of action. He further
submitted that the suit is not only filed at pre-mature level but
same is barred under the law in view of the Act of 1952.
7. Learned senior advocate has referred order dated
04.08.2021 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.6165/2017
passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court wherein a criminal
proceeding instituted against one of the petitioner Akshay Kumar
was quashed. He submitted that the trial court has not only
ignored the principle of law to decide an application under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC but it has continued a futile suit, which was
required to be thrown out without wastage of single minute.
8. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsels for
plaintiff respondent No.1 and he submitted that on the basis of
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 01:10:17 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:22891] (6 of 19) [CR-217/2024]
cause of action accrued to the plaintiff, a civil suit was filed before
the civil court and same is maintainable as the suit is not barred
by any law. He further submitted that in earlier films produced by
same set of petitioners, the lawyers and Judges were not only
defamed but also they were shown as tool of entertainment. He
further submitted that the court of law is established under the
Constitution of India and lawyers are officers of the court and no
one is authorized to defame either the lawyers or the Judges.
Learned counsel further submitted that though shooting schedule
in Ajmer is over but still the film is not released and now plaintiff
is praying that film should not be released before taking all
necessary steps to prevent possible defamation of lawyers and
Judges. He further referred Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India and submitted that a reasonable restriction
can be placed even under the Constitution of India on right of
expression and if petitioners are directed to submit a copy of
script to the Court before releasing the film, then nothing is going
to harm the petitioners. He also submitted that while filing a civil
suit, the plaintiff is required to show a cause of action and in para
Nos. 10 to 12, they have mentioned cause of action accrued to
them and on the basis of this cause of action, instant suit was filed
before the trial court. At last, he submitted that the objections
raised by the petitioners defendants are mixed question of fact
and law and same can be decided after framing issues and
recording of evidence but a plaint cannot be rejected on the
grounds as mentioned by petitioners herein.
9. Heard learned Senior Advocate for petitioners and learned
counsels for respondent. Perused the material placed on record.
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 01:10:17 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:22891] (7 of 19) [CR-217/2024]
Also considered judgments as referred by learned Senior Advocate
for petitioners.
10. The facts giving rise to present petition under Section 115
CPC are that the petitioners are producing an upcoming film titled
as “Jolly LLB-3” and the schedule of shooting was fixed at the
premises of Divisional Railway Manager (DRM), Ajmer from
25.04.2024 to 10.05.2024. After acquiring knowledge about
shooting of said film by petitioners a civil suit No.44/2024 was
filed for injunction before learned Civil Judge for seeking following
relief:
अ वादी के पक्ष मे व प्रतिवादीगण के विरूद्ध इस आशय की
स्थायी निषेधाज्ञा पारित की जावे कि प्रतिवादीगण फिल्म
मेकर्स, फिल्म के निर्माता, निदे शक, अभिनेता व काम कर
रहे तमाम यूनिट को इस सबंध मे निर्देशित किया जावे कि
वह शुटिंग में फिल्माएं जाने वाले तमाम दृष्यो डायलोगो मे
न्यायालय की गरिमा के साथ साथ अधिवक्ताओ व
न्यायाधीशो की गरिमा को ठे स नही पहुं चाये । इस आशय की
ब वादी के पक्ष मे व प्रतिवादीगण के विरूद्ध इस आशय की
स्थायी निषेधाज्ञा पारित की जावे कि प्रतिवादीगण फिल्म
मेकर्स, फिल्म के निर्माता, निदे शक, अभिनेता का सहित
डी.आर.एम में काम करने वाले तमाम अधिकारियो,
कर्मचारियो, एजेन्ट असाईनीज सभी को पाबंद फरमाया
जावे कि वह अधिवक्ता सहित डी.आर.एम आफिस मे
सार्वजानिक कार्य से जाने वाले आमजन को प्रवेश हे तु
कार्यालय मे नही रोके और कार्यालय में सार्वजानिक रूप से
आम दिन की तरह प्रवेश करने दिया जावे।
स वादी के पक्ष मे व प्रतिवादीगण के विरूद्ध इस आशय की
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 01:10:17 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:22891] (8 of 19) [CR-217/2024]स्थायी निषेधाज्ञा पारित की जावे कि प्रतिवादीगण फिल्म
मेकर्स, फिल्म के निर्माता, निदे शक, अभिनेता द्वारा तैयार
की गयी स्क्रीप्ट को न्यायालय मे पेश कर पूर्ण संतुष्टि के
पश्चात ही न्यायालय द्वारा अनुमत किये जाने पर ही फिल्म
के दृष्यो व डायलोग को फिल्माएं ओर माननीय न्यायालय के
अंतिम आदे श तक फिल्म को रिलीज करने पर भी रोक
लगायी जावे।
द वाद व्यय दिलाया दिलाया जावे व अन्य अनुतोष जो माननीय
न्यायालय वाद पत्र की परिस्थितियो को मध्यनजर रखते हुए
उचित समझे वादी को दिलाया जावे।
11. During pendency of this civil suit, petitioners (defendant
Nos. 1 to 3) have filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
primarily on the ground that neither a cause of action has accrued
nor a suit is maintainable before the civil court as same is barred
by law, which was dismissed by the trial court on 27.05.2024.
Simultaneously another application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
was filed by defendant No.4 (respondent No.2 herein) and same
was also dismissed on 27.05.2024 but no revision petition is filed
by respondent No.4. The facts clearly indicated that at DRM Office,
Ajmer shooting was scheduled after obtaining necessary
permission and approval.
12. A perusal of relief claimed by petitioners clearly indicated
that no relief is claimed to abandon or stop shooting in DRM Office
rather relief was claimed not to cause hindrance or obstruction in
movement of general public including staff and lawyers. Similarly
an injunction is sought about content of the script on
apprehension of possible defamatory content, prejudicial to
reputation and image of Bar and Bench. A final relief is claimed as
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 01:10:17 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:22891] (9 of 19) [CR-217/2024]
a solution to prayer in previous para to direct petitioners to submit
a script before the court and prior approval of court so as to
release the film.
Rationale behind provision under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC
13. Having considered the plaint and relief, we are dealing
instant revision petition, filed after dismissal of application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Order VII Rule 11 CPC deals with the
grounds for rejection of plaint aiming to prevent frivolous or
defective suits. The provision enables the Court to reject a plaint,
if certain conditions are satisfied. The provision of Order VII Rule
11 CPC is reproduced as under:-
Rejection of plaint– The plaint shall be
rejected in the following cases:–
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of
action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued,
and the plaintiff, on being required by the
Court to correct the valuation within a time
to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly
valued, but the plaint is written upon paper
insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on
being required by the Court to supply the
requisite stamp-paper within a time to be
fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the
statement in the plaint to be barred by any
law :
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with
the provision of rule 9:
“Provided that the time fixed by the Court for
the correction of the valuation or supplying of
the requisite stamp-paper shall not be
extended unless the Court, for reasons to be
recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was
prevented by any cause of an exceptional
nature for correcting the valuation or
supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the
case may be, within the time fixed by the(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 01:10:17 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:22891] (10 of 19) [CR-217/2024]Court and that refusal to extend such time
would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.”
14. In case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4
SCC (1) 467, Hon’ble Supreme Court while examining the
aforesaid provision has held that the trial court must remember
that if on a meaningful and not a formal reading of the plaint it is
manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a
clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under Order VII
Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned
therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a
cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing
by examining the party under Order X of the Code.
15. The object of the said provision is further considered by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Assistant
Charity Commissioner, (2004) 3 SCC 137, and in Popat and
Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff Association,
(2005) 7 SCC 510, and held that no court shall permit the
plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in a suit in case
the suit does not disclose a cause of action or barred by any law
or law of limitation.
16. In case of Saleem Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra, (2003)
1 SCC 557 that the relevant facts which need to be looked into
for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the
plaint. The trial court can exercise the power at any stage of the
suit i.e. before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to
the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For
the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d)
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 01:10:17 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:22891] (11 of 19) [CR-217/2024]
of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint are
germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written
statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage.
17. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dahibhen Vs.
Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRs and Ors. 2020
SCC Online (SC) 562 while dealing with an appeal against an
order allowing rejection of a suit at the threshold, had occasion to
consider various precedents to discuss the intent under Order VII
Rule 11 of CPC. Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that if no cause
of action is disclosed in the plaint, or if the suit is barred by law,
court would not permit protraction of the proceedings and it would
be necessary to put an end to the shame litigation so that further
judicial time is not wasted.
18. After placing reliance upon Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv
Gandhi 1986 SCC (SUPP) 315, Hon’ble Supreme Court opined
that the entire purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure
that a litigation, which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive
should not be permitted to occupy the time and space of the
Courts. The power on the Court to terminate a civil action is,
however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order
VII Rule 11 CPC are required to be strictly adhered to.
19. Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with such an
application seeking rejection of a plaint clarified that while
determining any application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the
court should restrict itself to the plaint and should not go into the
detail facts as provided under the written statement or even in the
application filed for rejection of plaint. While scrutinizing the
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 01:10:17 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:22891] (12 of 19) [CR-217/2024]
averments in the plaint, the Court can read documents annexed
and relied upon in the plaint.
20. Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC provides that a plaint should be
rejected if the suit is barred by any law. Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case of Ramisetty Venkatanna Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb
2023 INSC 458 has observed that plaint should be rejected
under Order VII Rule 11 (a)(d) of CPC if it is vexatious, illusory
cause of action and barred by law.
21. In case of Elfeco Housing and Industries Ltd. Vs. Ashok
Vidyarthi (supra) Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs.
Syed Jalal (supra), KUM. Geetha, D/o Late Krishna and
Ors. Vs. Nanjundasyamy and Ors (Supra) and Om Prakash
Srivastava Vs. Union of India (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court
has considered provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and held that
while considering application, the court has to strictly adhere to
averment in plaint and if no cause of action is disclosed from
overall facts and circumstances of the case and is barred by law
then suit has to be rejected. In case of Shipping Corporation of
India Ltd. Vs. Machado Brothers and Ors. (supra) even
considering a subsequent event, it renders suit infructuous. The
plaint was rejected under Section 151 CPC.
22. Having considered the legal position as referred hereinabove,
it is crystal clear that a plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 CPC can
be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on grounds mentioned
therein but while considering the application, the Court can only
look at plaint and the documents annexed with the plaint or relied
upon in plaint which means that a meaningful reading of plaint,
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 01:10:17 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:22891] (13 of 19) [CR-217/2024]
document annexed or relied by plaintiff are required to be
considered while considering application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC. A plaint which does not disclose a cause of action or which is
barred by law, which includes law of limitation can be dismissed at
any stage before pronouncement of judgment. The legal position
shows that a duty conferred upon the Court and can be exercised
on application of any of the defendant or suo moto by the Court
itself so as to save precious judicial time.
23. Aforesaid principles of law suggest that law empowers the
Court to reject a suit, if it fulfills the condition as prescribed under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC but the only condition is that the Court
cannot look into defence or averment made in either the written
statement or in application itself. While considering an application,
the Court cannot presume that the objection raised about
maintainability of suit is a mixed question of facts and law. If law
is clear that when a suit appears to be barred by law then the
plaint is necessarily be rejected at very threshold.
Bar of Jurisdiction of Court
24. Section 9 of CPC provides that the Court shall have
jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature except suit of which
cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred. It is well-settled that
consent of parties cannot confer nor take away jurisdiction of any
Court which means if a Civil Court has jurisdiction neither
acquiescence nor waiver or estoppel can create the same.
25. In case of A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak & Anr. AIR 1988
SC 1531, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the power of
Court or jurisdiction is legislative in character. In case of Chief
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 01:10:17 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:22891] (14 of 19) [CR-217/2024]
Engineer, Hydel Project & Ors vs Ravinder Nath & Ors.
(2008) 2 SCC 350, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a
decree passed without jurisdiction is nullity and its invalidity can
be set up even at the stage of execution. It is essentially based on
a principle “coram non judice”. In case of Kiran Singh And
Others vs Chaman Paswan And Others AIR 1954 SC 340 has
held that a defect of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and
such a basic and fundamental defect cannot be cured by consent
of the parties. Conversely, if a Court to decide a dispute, the same
cannot be taken away or ousted by consent of the parties. In case
of Abdulla Bin Ali Vs. Gullapa & Ors. (1985) 2 SCC 54,
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction does not depend
upon the defence taken by the defendants in the written
statement. A similar view was expressed in case of Bank of
Baroda vs Moti Bhai And Ors. (1985) 1 SCC 475 and held that
on the question of jurisdiction, one must always have regard to
the substance of the matter and not to the form of the suit.
26. In view of legal position about jurisdiction of civil Court, it is
apparently clear that in case suit is expressly or impliedly barred
then the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and continue
the civil suit. In case a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain
or continue a civil suit then a plaint is required to be rejected
under Order VII of Rule 11(d) of CPC.
Application of Law in the instant case
27. A perusal of plaint, it is apparent that plaintiff has filed a suit
on the basis of cause of action accrued on 29.04.2024 when
shooting of film “Jolly LLB-3” has commenced and on the basis of
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 01:10:17 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:22891] (15 of 19) [CR-217/2024]
said cause of action, a suit was filed on 06.05.2024. The Para
Nos.10, 11 and 12 indicate concern of plaintiff and we are
reproducing the same as under:
“10. यह कि प्रतिवादी/अप्रार्थी शुटिंग मेकर्स को यह निर्देश
दिया जाना भी आवश्यक है कि जिस फिल्म की शुटिंग मुख्य
रूप से वकीलो, न्यायपालिका, न्यायाधीश को फोकस कर
तैयार की जा रही है उसके संबंध मे भाषा मर्यादा न्यायपालिका
की छवि को पूर्ण रूप से ध्यान रखा जाना अपेक्षित है जिसके
लिए प्रतिवादी/अप्रार्थी को निषेधाज्ञा से पाबंद फरमाया जाना
आवश्यक है ।
11. यह कि पूर्व मे भी जॉली एल.एल.बी., जॉली
एल.एल.बी.2 मूवी प्रतिवादी/अप्रार्थी शुटिंग मेकर्स द्वारा पर्दे
पर उतारकर आमजन के लिए बनायी गयी है परन्तु उसमे कई
ऐसे दृष्य व डायलोग दर्शाये गये है जिससे वकीलो
न्यायपालिका व न्यायधीश की छवि आमजन के बीच मे गलत
तरीके से प्रदर्शित की गयी है जो कतई उचित मुनासिफ व
न्यायसंगत नही है ऐसे मे प्रतिवादी/अप्रार्थी को पाबंद फरमाया
जाना आवश्यक है कि न्यायपालिका के अनुरूप ही फिल्म के
डायलोग व दृष्य दिखाये व फिल्माये जावे।
12. यह कि प्रतिवादी/अप्रार्थी द्वारा फिल्म मे किरदार निभाने
के लिए अधिवक्ताओ की भूमिका के संबंध मे यदि किसी
प्रकार की सहायता की आवश्यकता होती तो उन्हे सीधा बार
एसोसिएशन से सम्पर्क करना चाहिये था और अधिवक्ताओ के
बीच अपनी बात रखकर फिल्म की शुटिंग भी की जा सकती
थी इसके लिए जिला बार एसोसिएशन अजमेर मे स्थान और
अधिवक्ताओ का सहयोग पू र्णतया प्रदान किया जा सकता था
यदि वे शुटिंग के दौरान अधिवक्ताओ न्यायपालिका व
न्यायाधीश की मर्यादाओ को ध्यान मे रखकर फिल्म का अंकन
करे और करते तो इस सबंध मे
उन्हे जिला बार एसोसिएशन से सम्पर्क कर अधिवक्ताओं की(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 01:10:17 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:22891] (16 of 19) [CR-217/2024]भावनाओ का ध्यान रखना भी पाबंद फरमाया जाना अपेक्षित
है ।”
28. Aforesaid indicated that on the basis of two previous films,
“Jolly LLB”, “Jolly LLB-2”, the plaintiff was apprehensive about
use of defamatory and objectionable dialogues and language in
the film by the film producer and the actors therefore a suit was
filed to as to protect image and reputation of judicial institution,
from possible defamation.
29. A film shooting was scheduled from 29.04.2024 to
13.05.2024 and suit was filed on 06.05.2024 wherein this
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed on 10.05.2024
and same was dismissed on 27.05.2024. Therefore in light of
judgment in case of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Vs.
Machado Brothers and Ors. (supra) relief with regard to para
(B) about restriction and obstruction in movement in DRM Office
has rendered infructuous, now relief pertains to para (A) and para
(C) remains to be considered and we are considering accordingly.
30. The Cinematography Act, 1952 was enacted to make
provision for a certificate of film for exhibition relating by means of
cinematography. The Act provides for establishment of Central
Board of Film Certification (hereinafter referred as “CBFC”),
responsible for reviewing and classification of films before being
released for exhibition. The Act also outlines the process for film
certification and types of certificates that can be issued such as
Universal (U), Universal with parental guidance (UA), Adult (A)
and Special (S). The CBFC is responsible to review and certify film
for public exhibition ensuring that they meet certain standards and
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 01:10:17 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:22891] (17 of 19) [CR-217/2024]
suitable for viewing and then certificate was issued for exhibition.
The Act also regulates for guidelines and standards for public
screening. Aggrieved from any decision of CBFC there is a
provision of appellate Tribunal to redress the grievance from a
decision of CBFC.
31. Section 5B lays down principles for guidance in certification
of films. It empowers CBFC not to grant any certificate when a film
or any part of it is against the interest of sovereignty and integrity
of India, the security of the State, friendly relation with the
Foreign State, public order, decency or morality or involves
defamation or contempt of Court and likely to incite the
commission of any offence. With ready reference we are
reproducing Section 5B as under:
“5B. (1) A film shall not be certified for public
exhibition if, in the opinion of the authority competent
to grant the certificate, the film or any part of it is
against the friendly relations with foreign States,
public order, decency or morality, or involves
defamation or contempt of court or is likely to incite
the commission of any offence.
(2) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section
(1), the Central Government may issue such directions
as it may think fit setting out the principles which shall
guide the authority competent to grant certificates
under this Act in sanctioning films for public
exhibition.”
32. Aforementioned provision is already available to redress
grievances raised by the plaintiff. Despite the provision under
Section 5B, if CBFC grants a certificate for exhibition of film which
involves defamation or Contempt of Court, then the plaintiff has a
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 01:10:17 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:22891] (18 of 19) [CR-217/2024]
right to approach the appellate Tribunal constituted under Section
5D of the Act of 1952. In case, the appellate Tribunal overrules
the objection or dismiss the petition then revisional authority of
Central Government can be invoked.
33. Section 7F of the Act of 1952 bars a suit or proceedings in
respect of anything which is done in good faith or entitled to be
done under the Act and same is reproduced as under:
7F. No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie
against [the Central Government, the Tribunal, the
Board], advisory panel or any officer or member of
[the Central Government, the Tribunal, the Board
or] advisory panel, as the case may be, in respect
of anything which is in good faith done or intended
to be done under this Act.
34. Though Section 7F does not bar institution of a civil suit to
withhold release of any film but scheme of the Act of 1952 clearly
provides for regulation of certification and exhibition and further
for appeal and revisional jurisdiction.
35. Herein this case, though a suit is not expressly barred by law
but the provision impliedly bar institution of a civil suit before
completion of the process as mandated under the Act of 1952 in
relation to production of any film. Herein, alleged cause of action
about prayer clause (A) and (C) is premature. The film is at
nebulous stage, which is at production stage, and we can say that
“there’s many a slip between the cup and the lip”. After
completing the film same has to undergo process as mandated
under the Act of 1952 and without exercising the provision of law
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 01:10:17 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:22891] (19 of 19) [CR-217/2024]
which was enacted to regulate certification and exhibition of film,
no civil suit can be filed before any court so as to withhold
production of film (art work) inciting the reasons of content to be
defamatory or prejudicial to the interest of a community or a
group of persons.
36. We are in a sovereign, socialist, secular democratic republic
Country having goal to ensure justice, liberty, equality and
fraternity to all its citizens. The Article 19 of the Constitution
protects the freedom of speech and expression but it also includes
reasonable restriction in cases provided under Section 5(b)(1) of
the Act of 1952.
37. Having considered the entirety of facts and circumstances of
the case, it is apparent on record that the suit is impliedly barred
and a plaint is filed at premature stage without completion of the
process as mandated under the Act of 1952, therefore, the plaint
is liable to he rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a)(d). Thus the
trial court has committed serious error while dismissing
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
38. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the instant revision
petition is hereby allowed and impugned order dated 27.05.2024
is hereby set aside. As a result, application under Order VII Rule
11 CPC filed by petitioners defendant Nos.1 to 3 dated 10.05.2024
is hereby allowed and civil suit No.44/2024 filed by respondent
No.1 plaintiff is hereby rejected.
39. No order as to cost.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J
PREETI VALECHA /96
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 01:10:17 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)