In the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 31 ST DAY OF JULY, 2014

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

REVIEW PETITION NO.537 OF 2014

BETWEEN:

Smt.Bhagya Krishnamurthy W/o M.S.Krishnamurthy Aged about 47 years R/at NO.10, 10 th Main Road Ganesha Block, Nandini Layout Bangalore – 560 096 ... PETITIONER (By Smt.Prameila Nesargi, Sr.counsel, for Shri.Hemanth Kuamr.D., Advocate)

AND:

1. Ms. Pooja Gandhi D/o Pavankumar Gandhi Aged about 31 years Producer R/at No.104, Roshan Palace Katriguppe, BSK 3 rd Stage Behind Big Bazar, Bangalore

2. Jyothi Gandhi W/o Pavankumar Gandhi Aged about 50 years Producer R/at No.104, Roshan Palace Katriguppe, BSK 3 rd Stage Behind Big Bazar, Bangalore

3. B.S.Vyjayanthi Producer C/o No.104, Roshan Palace Katriguppe, BSK 3 rd Stage Behind Big Bazar, Bangalore

4. B.Satish Pradhan Director, Producer C/o No.104, Roshan Palace Katriguppe, BSK 3 rd Stage Behind Big Bazar, Bangalore

5. Pooja Gandhi Productions Having its registered office at No.5021, 2nd Floor Tower No.5, Prestige Sough Ridge Hoskerehalli, BSK 3 rd Stage Bangalore – 560 085 By its Proprietor Ms. Pooja Gandhi ... RESPONDENTS (By Shri.Ajith Achappa, Advocate, for M/s. NDA Partners, for R1, 2, 4 and 5)

This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, praying to review the order dated 23.06.2014 passed in MFA No.4030/2014 C/W 4039/2014 and modify the order directing the respondents to exhibit the movie in full and without there being any blanks in between and permit the petitioner to take assistance of Mr.Babu Krishnamurthy, the publisher of Mangala magazine and Chandrashekara Patil the Kannada activist to watch the movie “Abhinetri”, and compare the same with the novel written by the petitioner in the interest of justice and equity on the file of this court.

This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

There is a delay of one day in filing the review petition. IA1/2014 is filed praying to condone the same.

2. M/s. NDA Partners, represented by Shri.

Ajith Achappa, learned advocate, accepts notice for respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5.

3. Having regard to the fact that there is a delay of only one day, which has been explained in the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner and being satisfied with the cause shown delay is condoned. IA

1/2014 is allowed.

4. I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents

1, 2 4 and 5.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that pursuant to the judgment of this court on 23.06.2014, the film “Abhinetri” was viewed

by the trial court in the presence of the parties and their counsel. However the petitioner had grievance with regard to the entire film not being shown and that there was certain cuts or blanks in the movie.

Therefore, the impugned order would call for modification. She also contended that the petitioner had approached the trial court with regard to her grievances in so far as the viewing of the film in question was concerned and that the trial court had passed orders against which writ petitions have also been filed. It is stated that in the writ petition there is an order reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach this court by way of review petition and seek modification of the order dated 23.06.2014 and it is in that context that the review petition has been filed and she states that appropriate directions be issued to the trial court with regard to the grievances ventilated by the petitioner in so far as the viewing of the film in question is concerned.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents states that the order of this court would not call for any modification as the petitioner has availed of her remedies before the trial court and so far as her complaint with regard to the film in question and thereafter this court has also been approached by way of writ petition and hence the petitioner could avail of her remedies in the writ court.

7. By order dated 23.06.2014, directions were issued to the trial court to view the film “Abhinetr” along with parties and their respective counsel and thereafter to dispose of the applications filed under

Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure

(CPC) in accordance with law.

8. The complaints or grievances which the petitioner has with regard to the viewing of the film are matters which have arisen subsequent to the passing of the judgment dated 23.06.2014. They all give rise to separate causes of action in respect of

which the petitioner has already sought remedies before the trial court and not being satisfied with the orders of the trial court has also availed remedy by way of filing writ petitions.

9. In that view of the matter, the judgment dated 23.06.2014 would not call for any modification.

It is clarified that the grievance of the petitioner subsequent to the order passed to the judgment of this court dated 23.06.2014 would not call for any modification of that judgment. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail of her remedies in accordance with law so far as those grievances are concerned.

10. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the matter is listed on

02.08.2014 for hearing on the applications and on that day the hearing would commence. The said submission is placed on record. It is needless to observe that both parties would cooperate with the trial court in order to ensure that the applications are

disposed of within the extended time frame granted by this court.

Subject to the aforesaid observations, the review petition stands dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Bsv