Media International v. Youngers Dream World Production

1. This petition seeks review of an order dated 17 May 2023, whereby I had dismissed IA 9507/2023, filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC).

2. IA 9507/2023 alleged contumacious and wilful disobedience by the respondent of order dated 6 October 2021, as modified by order dated 12 July 2022, to the extent it restrained the respondent from releasing the film “Majajan Orchestra”.

3. IA 9507/2023 alleged that, in the teeth of this order, the respondent had actually released the film “Majajan Orchestra” after 12 July 2022.

4. Paras 7 to 9 of the order under review, passed on 17 May 2023, read thus:

8. Neither of the pages to which Mr. Choudhary has drawn my attention, I am afraid, indicates that the film Majajan Orchestra was in fact released after 12th July 2022. The first screenshot at page 20 is of a post by Mr. Naresh Singla, intimating the release of the movie Majajan Orchestra on the Chaupal OTT platform. The mere fact that message was posted on 18th July 2022 cannot be led to an inference that the movie itself was released on the Chaupal OTT platform on 18th July 2022.

9. In fact, any such possible doubt, even if it were to exist, stands removed by the screen shot at page 21 also forming part of a Document P-5 with the present application. The screenshot represents a hoarding, advertising the film Majajan Orchestra, as being available on the Chaupal OTT platform. There is, on the hoarding, in an elliptical enclosure, the date and time 17th July 11:00 a.m.”

10. Mr. Choudhary has attempted, with all the persuasion at his command, to convince the court that the film “Majajan Orchestra” was in fact released after 12 July 2022. His contention is that the film was released on 17 July 2022. He has placed on record the following screenshot from YouTube, to drive his point home:

11. No case for review is, in my view, made out.

12. The YouTube link on which Mr. Choudhary relies only states that the film would be shown at the Chaupal OTT platform from 17 July 2022. This, in fact, is also represented in the hoarding which is shown in the second photograph in para 7 of the order under review.

13. I have already taken a view that these representations are not conclusive indicators that the movie was in fact released on the OTT platform after 12 July 2022.

14. Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that the YouTube link filed with the present application as Document 3 was ever shown to the court when the order under review was passed.

15. A review lies under Order XLVII of the CPC only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, or on the basis of new material which has come to the knowledge of the review petitioner after the order was passed and which could not have come to his knowledge prior thereto even with due diligence, or for any other sufficient reason. The words “or for any other sufficient reason” has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in Chhajju Ram v. Neki[1] as having to be read ejusdem generis with the earlier expressions error apparently on the face of the record and new material on record.

16. As already noted, the YouTube link filed as Document 3 with this application was never placed before this Court when the order under review was passed. It cannot be said that the petitioner could not have accessed this link, had he exhibited due diligence.

17. For all the above reasons, no case for exercise of review of order dated 17 May 2023 is made out.