O.A.Nos.682 to 684 of 2010 in C.S.No.577 of 2010 VINOD K.SHARMA, J., Application No.682 of 2010, has been moved by the applicant/plaintiff, with a prayer for grant of an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their agents dealers, assignees, distributors, theatre owners from continuous screening of the picture 'House full'. 2. Application No.683 of 2010, has been moved by the applicant/plaintiff, with a prayer for grant of an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, from selling the picture 'House full' to setellite channels world wide and telecasting the same in Satellite channels. 3. Application No.684 of 2010, has been moved by the applicant/plaintiff, with a prayer for grant of an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, from releasing VCDs, DVDs, Blue ray disc or any disc format, rights to internet, mobile download, Video on demand and IP TV etc., in the latest technology of the said film 'House full'. 4. When the applications came up for hearing, the film had already been released. This Court, therefore, only restrained the defendants/non-applicant from selling the picture 'House full' to satellite channels world wide, and telecasting it in satellite channels, as it was conveyed by the applicant/plaintiff, that these rights had not been sold, till the date of filing of the case. VINOD K.SHARMA, J. Jrl 5. It is submitted that the satellite right had been sold much prior to the date of filing of suit/order by this Court. 6. In view of the fact stated above, the relief claimed has become infructuous, as on the date of hearing of the application, satellite rights had already been sold. The clock cannot be put back now to restrain the defendants/non-applicant from doing an act which already stood done. 7. It will be for the applicant/plaintiff to work out his remedy, to seek what relief he would be entitled to, in the given facts and circumstances and how, he has to work out his remedy. 8. Certainly, at this stage, the relief claimed in these applications cannot be granted. 9. Consequently, all these applications are dismissed, leaving the applicant/plaintiff, to work out his remedy under given circumstances. No costs. 17.11.2011 jrl O.A.Nos.682 to 684 of 2010 in C.S.No.577 of 2010