IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 11349 of 2009(O) -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13/02/2009 IN IA 1242/09 IN IA 761/09 IN OS.4/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S.PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LTD. 7TH FLOOR, OFF.NEW LINK ROAD, REGD.OFFICE CRESCENT TOWERS, ANTHERI EAST, BOMBAY, REP.BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SHRI.SARATH SASI. BY MR.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SMT.G.RANJITA MR.DEEPU THANKAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SAVIO JOSEPH MENDEZ,S/O.ANTONEY GORDON MENDEZ, THERESA HOUSE, LISSIE HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. MELNA MENDEZ,SAVIO JOSEPH MENDEZ, THERESA HOUSE,LISSIE HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.MILLU DANDAPANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.11349 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 1st June, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: 1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam, to consider the I.A.No.761/2009 in O.S.No.4/2009 within a period of 10 days from the date of next posting; and 2. Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems, fit, proper and necessary in the circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.4/09 on the file of the District Court, Ernakulam. The first plaintiff filed the above suit for a declaration that the defendant is not entitled to demand or recover any royalty or licence fee or require the plaintiffs to pay to the defendant any royalty or licence fee in respect of any sound recording of the creations of the plaintiffs and its performance before the public and other reliefs. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs moved Ext.P6 application for an interim injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing the conduct of the performances of the plaintiffs including the performance scheduled to be conducted on 31.1.2009, till the W.P.C.No.11349/09 - 2 - disposal of the suit. The learned District Judge, after hearing both sides, passed Ext.P7 interim order restraining the defendant from interfering with or obstructing the conducting of a performance by the petitioner scheduled on 31.1.2009. Pursuant thereto without hearing and disposing Ext.P6 application, the grievance of the petitioner/defendant in the suit is that the learned District Judge passed an interim order in another application moved by the plaintiffs seeking a similar interim injunction when a performance was scheduled to be conducted by them on a subsequent date. The Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the court below for an early disposal of Ext.P6 application on merits. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he does not stand on any technicalities and has no objection in hearing and disposing Ext.P6 application on merits expeditiously. 3. The learned District Judge is directed to dispose Ext.P6 application, after hearing both sides, within a span of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of judgment of this Writ Petition. Communicate a copy of this judgment to the court below forthwith. The Writ Petition is disposed as above. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE W.P.C.No.11349/09 - 3 -