Kerala High Court
Vivek Viswanathan Nair vs Easy Fly Productions on 4 June, 2025
O.P.(C) No. 994 of 2025
1
2025:KER:39396
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1947
OP(C) NO. 994 OF 2025
AGAINST THE CA NO.3 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT &
SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED
18.01.2025 IN IA NO.1/2025 IN CS NO.6 OF 2025 OF ASSISTANT
SESSIONS COURT/PRINCIPAL SUB COURT/COMMERCIAL COURT,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
1 VIVEK VISWANATHAN NAIR
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O VISWANATHAN NAIR, VISWAM VEETIL, PILAPUZHA,
HARIPPAD, ALAPUZHA, PIN - 690 514.
2 PRIYA VIVEK
AGED 41 YEARS
W/O VIVEK VISWANATHAN NAIR, VISWAM VEETIL,
PILAPUZHA, HARIPPAD, ALAPUZHA, PIN - 690 514.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY
SRI.T.A.JOY
SRI.E.S.SANEEJ
SRI.M.P.UNNIKRISHNAN
SRI.N.ABHILASH
SHRI.ALBIN VARGHESE
SMT.FATHIMA SHALU S.
SMT.ABISHA.E.R
SMT.MEGHA G.
SMT.LAKSHMI K.S.
SHRI.ABHIJITH V. PRASAD
O.P.(C) No. 994 of 2025
2
2025:KER:39396
RESPONDENTS/RESPODNENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 EASY FLY PRODUCTIONS
REG NO. 5338/2021, PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING
ADDRESS AT TC. 81/1944-3, SS KOVIL ROAD,
THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001,
REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER THOUFEEK RASHEED.
2 THOUFEEK RASHEED
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O BEENA RASHEED, PARTNER, EASY FLY PRODUCTIONS,
RESIDING AT, TC 48/985,PALACE MANZIL,
AMBALATHARA, POONTHURA. P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 026.
3 AJITHKUMAR VASUDEVAN
AGED 63 YEARS
PARTNER, EASY FLY PRODUCTIONS, S/O VASUDEVAN
NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT 2B, MUTHOOT CAPITAL VIEW
APARTMENTS, NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 033.
4 M/S NAISAM SALAM PRODUCTIONS
REP BY, NAISAM SALAM, S/O ABDUL SALAM, AGED 43
YEARS, P.K HOUSE, PUTHUR , VENJARAMOODU.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 607.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SREEHARI INDUKALADHARAN
SHRI.T.SUKESH ROY
SMT.MEERA MENON
SHRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW (SR.)
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P.(C) No. 994 of 2025
3
2025:KER:39396
JUDGMENT
This original petition is filed by the petitioners for
issuing a direction to the Commercial Appellate Court
(Principal District Court) at Ernakulam to take up and
consider Ext.P7 appeal as well as Ext.P8 Interlocutory
Application pending on the file of the Commercial appellate
Court and direct the repondents to furnish security for the
entire amount before the release of movie, namely
"ABHYANTHARA KUTTAVALI" and also staying the release of
the said movie till furnishing the bank security.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent No.2
who is the Managing Partner for the 1 st respondent and the
the 4th respondent. However, the 3rd respondent who is said
to be a Partner for the 1st respondent, has not appeared,
there is no need to issue fresh notice to the respondent
No.3, who is one of the partner of the 1 st respondent and
the 2nd respondent is Managing Partner who represent the
2025:KER:39396
firm, respondent No.1. Hence, issuing notice to the
respondent No. 3 is dispensed with and there of, service is
complete.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that the petitioner filed petition as against the
respondent in CS No.6 of 2025 before the Commercial
Court, Ernakulam. The petitioner is also said to be filed I.A.
No.1 of 25 in CS No.6 of 2025 under Order 39 Rule 1 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which came to be dismissed
by the Commercial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner
approached the Commercial Appellate Court, that is
Principal District Court, Ernakulam by filing Commercial
appeal No.3/2025 and also filed an IA No.1 of 2025, staying
the impugned order passed by the trial Court and
restricting the respondent from releasing the said film and
also for seeking remedy for executing the bank security for
Rs.1.55 Crores said to be paid by the petitioner to the
respondent Nos.1 to 3. The Commercial Appellate Court
2025:KER:39396
said to be adjourned the matter without considering the
same. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court.
4. While hearing the arguments on interim prayer,
this Court by order dated 07.04.2025 directed the
respondents to furnish security for an amount of Rs.1.55
Crores and permitted to release and distribute the movie by
name "ABHYANTHARA KUTTAVALI".
5. Subsequent to the passing of the order, the
respondent No.4 filed IA for vacating the interim order. The
counsel for the petitioner has contended that in spite of the
executing the agreement with the petitioners, the
respondent No.1 to 3 said to be sold the right and title of
the said film to the respondent No.4 without the knowledge
of the petitioners and borrowed Rs.1.55 Crores. Therefore,
if the film is released, the petitioners are unable to recover
the amount from the respondents 1 to 3. Therefore, filed
the suit before the Commercial Court and filed an
application which came to be dismissed. Accordingly, filed
2025:KER:39396
appeal in the appellate Court along with an IA which is
pending consideration.
6. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent has
strenuously opposed the petition, contending that the order
of this Court passed directing the respondent No.4 for
furnishing the security for the said amount Rs.1.55 Crores.
It is contended that the order passed by this court is based
on the another order of this Court in FAO No.17/25,
wherein this Court directed for furnishing security of the
plaint claim before the trial Court. It is submitted that the
said order in FAO NO.17/2025 directing the respondent to
furnish bank security has been challenged before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that the said order in FAO No.17/25
dated 20.03.2025 has been stayed. Therefore, it is
contended that now the present interim order is derseved
to be vacated.
6. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent also
contended that there is an agreement between respondent
2025:KER:39396
No.1 to 3 and 4th respondent and the title and ownership of
the film "ABHYANTHARA KUTTAVALI" has been sold to the
4th respondent for Rs.50 Lakhs. Thereafter, it was
registered with film chamber and film actually shot by the
respondent spending huge Crores of money, and now the
film is ready for releasing at that time this Court staying
the film and order for furnishing security of Rs.1.55 Crores.
It is contended by the respondent counsel that even as per
the agreement entered between the petitioner respondent
Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.4 as per Ext.P17, condition
that the amount shall be payable by the respondent Nos.1
to 3 after three months of the release of the film.
Therefore, the question of furnishing security by the
respondents does not arises and as per the agreement
between the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.4 if
any liability to the assigner that is respondent Nos.1 to 3
will not be binding on the respondent No.4. Therefore, on
2025:KER:39396
this ground the respondent No.4 prayed for vacating the
order and also dismiss the petition.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents also
submits that the petitioners approached this court and
obtained a interim order by suppression the facts. The first
appellate Court adjourned the matter. But, in fact the very
petitioners advanced petition on 01.04.25 and by keeping
that date and suppressing the facts, the petitioners
approached this Court and obtained order and not pressing
the said application, which was came before the first
appellate Court on 08.04.2025. It is also submitted by the
counsel for respondent No.4 that earlier two dates of
hearing ie. 04.02.25 and 27.02.2025 has been suppressed
and the petitioner by misrepresentation and snatched the
order by suppression of facts. Hence, prayed for vacating
the interim order and dismissing the petition.
8. The learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent also
submits that borrowed money by the respondent Nos. 1 to
2025:KER:39396
3 and some amount paid by the very 2nd respondent to the
petitioners and there was some cheque cases filed by the
petitioners and there was understanding between the
petitioners and respondent No.2 on payment of the said
amount and Rs.2 Lakhs said to be paid by the 2 nd
respondent to the petitioners and as per the order of the
trial Court, Rs.31 Lakhs paid by the respondent No.2 to the
petitioners. These payments have been suppressed by the
petitioners and snatched the order from this Court, hence
prayed for dismissing the petition.
9. Having heard the arguments and perused the
records. On perusal of the records, it is not in dispute the
petitioner said to be entered agreement between the
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for having borrowing amount of
Rs.1.55 Crores and admittedly the said amount is not paid
at a lump sum, but it was paid to various persons like cine
actor, production manager, director etc. which is revealed
from the very agreement filed by the petitioners.
2025:KER:39396
Subsequently, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 said to be entered
an agreement with the respondent No.4 and said to be sold
the very title and ownership of the said film to the
respondent No.4 by receiving Rs.50 Lakhs and as per that
agreement between the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the
respondent No.4 said to be shot the film by spending huge
Crores of money. However, the petitioners approached the
Commercial Court for recovery of the said money Rs.1.55
Crores by filing CS No.6/25 and an IA also filed which came
to be dismissed by the trial Court, which was challenged
before the Commercial Appellate Court in CA No.3/2025.
The petitioner also filed an another Ext.P8 IA, where the
Commercial Court was said to be not passed any order and
adjourned the matter. Therefore, the petitioner rushed to
this Court for issuing direction to the Commercial Court to
dispose of the appeal Ext.P7 and IA Ext.P8.
10. Accordingly, this Court after hearing arguments,
passed an interim order on 07.04.2025 by directing the
2025:KER:39396
respondents to furnish security for Rs.1.55 Crores and
permitted to release the film. Admittedly, the petitioners
prayed before the Court for a direction to the Commercial
Appellate Court where the commercial appellate court, is
said to be adjourned the matter, regarding the direction
matter of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a criminal case.
On taking the matter on day today basis, however, the
respondents counsel submits that the Commercial Appellate
Court also taking the other matters along with the direction
matter of the supreme Court. It cannot be said the
Commercial Appellate Court is not taking all other matters
except the direction matter which is criminal case as
directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The respondents
also brought to the notice, that the Commercial Court also
hearing the other matters and passing the orders. If at all
the Commercial Appellate Court is not able to hear the
matter, it can transfer the same to the additional appellate
Courts which is also working in Ernakulam. Therefore, the
2025:KER:39396
contention of the petitioners counsel that the Commercial
Appellate Court not taking the matter for hearing is not
acceptable. However, in view of the pending disputes the
Commercial Appellate Court is required to be decide
including the IA as well as the commercial appeal filed
before it without causing delay. Therefore, it is necessary
to issue direction to the Commercial Appellate Court for
speedy disposal of the IA pending in the Commercial
Appellate Court.
11. In respect of the interim order passed by this
Court, for vacating the order, and as the appeal filed by the
counsel for respondent No.4, it is clearly stated though the
matter has been adjourned to 11.06.2025, but the very
petitioner advanced the matter on 01.04.2025 and the
Commercial Appellate Court adjourned the matter for
hearing the IA on 08.04.2025. In the meanwhile,
admittedly, the petitioner approached this Court by filing
this OP on 04.04.2025 and moved before this Court on
2025:KER:39396
07.04.2025 and obtained the interim order from this Court
for seeking security. Admittedly, the petitioner suppressed
the fact that the Commercial Court took up the matter and
admitted the appeal on 04.02.2025 and adjourned to
11.02.2025 & 27.02.2025. Thereafter, once again for
issuing notice it was adjourned to March 2025. These steps
were not taken. But, in the synopsis of the petition and the
grounds made in the petition by the petitioner not stated
these two dates and advancing the case. That apart, when
the petitioner himself advanced the matter before the first
appellate Court on 01.04.2025 and the first appellate Court
posted the matter for hearing on 08.04.2025. The
petitioner rushed to this Court for seeking direction and
obtaining the order by filing the petition on 04.04.2025 and
obtained the interim order on 07.04.2025. The counsel for
the respondent rightly contended the petitioner suppressed
the facts of hearing date and obtained the order and in
support of his case he has laid upon the judgment of the
2025:KER:39396
Division Bench Order 2023 SCC online Ker 1669 in the
case of Suhail K.M. & Anr. Vs. Peter Shyju, wherein the
Division Bench of this Court has held at para 9 as under:-
"In case there is any delay in the disposal of I.A.
No. 1 of 2023, the petitioners-landlords can
approach the Rent Control Court with an
application for time-bound disposal of that
interlocutory application, in view of the direction
contained in the decision of this Court in Abdul
Razak P.M., [2022 (4) KHC 260]. When the
object of superintendence under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India is to maintain the
orderly functioning of subordinate courts, as well
as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals, in such a
way as it does not bring it into any disrepute,
the petitioners-landlords, who have filed I.A. No.
1 of 2023 before the Rent Control Court only on
03.03.2023, cannot rush to this Court by filing
an original petition on 08.03.2023, invoking the
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227,
seeking time-bound consideration of that
interlocutory application.
11. In view of the pendency of case before the first
appellate Court, though it is adjourned to 11.06.2025, but
the very petitioner advanced the matter on 01.04.2025.
subsequently, the petitioner advanced the matter on
01.04.2025 and matter has been adjourned to 08.04.2025
2025:KER:39396
and for arguing the matter and even the first appellate
Court not heard and considered the matter and passed
order, but hurriedly approached this Court and obtained the
order that too for relying upon the some other order passed
in FAO No.17/25 dated 23.03.2025 which was already
stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP. Such
being the case, obtaining the order based upon the order in
FAO 17/25 is not survived.
12. Apart from that, the petitioner suppressed the
material fact and rushed to this Court and grabbed the
order, is nothing but abuse of process of law as held by the
Hon'ble Division Bench in the judgment stated supra.
Therefore, the order passed by this Court is deserved to be
vacated. That apart, while obtaining the order did not
mention about the order passed by the trial Court for
having made repayment of Rs.31 Lakhs and also
subsequent development between the respondent No.2
and petitioner for filing the cheque cases are not mentioned
2025:KER:39396
before this Court while passing the order. Such being the
case, the interim order passed by this Court directing the
respondent, furnishing the security have to be vacated.
That apart the very agreement between the respondent
Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.4 for having sold the film to
the respondent No.4 and the 4th respondent is said to be
purchased the title and thereafter produced the film. Such
being the case, all these disputes shall be adjudicated by
the first appellate Court while considering the IA and appeal
which was under challenge, as there is no order passed by
the trial Court or disputed the application filed by the
petitioner.
12. With this observation, I am of the view that the
interim orders passed in the petition is said to be vacated.
However, a direction is to be issued to the first appellate
Court to dispose of IA in accordance with law.
13. Accordingly, passed the following orders:-
2025:KER:39396
i. The original petition is allowed in part.
ii.The interim order passed by this Court on
7.4.25, by directing the respondents to furnish
bank security is hereby vacated.
iii.The Commercial Appellate Court is directed to
dispose of Ext.P8 IA as well as the Ext.P7
appeal under challenge as early as possible, in
accordance with law, by keeping the
observation and the agreements placed by the
parties.
iv.Any observations made by this Court should
not be influenced by the commercial Court.
Sd/-
K. NATARAJAN
JUDGE
S.M.K.
2025:KER:39396
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 994/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN CS NO.
06/2025 OF COMMERCIAL COURT, ERNAKULAM
DATED 27.12.2024
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.01/2025 IN CS
NO.06/2025 ON THE FILES OF COMMERCIAL
COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 27.12.2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA
NO.863/2024 IN UNNUMBERED CS OF 2024 OF
VACATION COURT DATED 01.01.2025
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN IA
NO.01/2025 IN CS NO.06/2025 DATED
15.01.2025
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN IA
NO.01/2025 IN CS NO.06/2025 DATED
15.01.2025
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.01/2025
IN CS NO.06/2025 DATED 18.01.2025
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CA NO.03/2025 DATED
23.01.2025 ON THE FILES OF COMMERCIAL
APPELLATE COURT (PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
COURT) AT ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.01/2025 IN CA
NO.03/2025 DATED 03.02.2025 ON THE
FILES OF COMMERCIAL APPELLATE
COURT(PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT)
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN IA
NO.01/2025 IN CA NO.03/2025 DATED
20.02.2025
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN IA
NO.01/2025 IN CA NO.03/2025 DATED
17.02.2025
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN IA
2025:KER:39396
NO.01/2025 IN CA NO.03/2025 DATED
03.03.2025
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE E-COURT STATUS OF CA
NO.03/2025 DATED 04.03.2025
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVANCEMENT PETITION
AS IA NO.03/2025 DATED 01.04.2025
BEFORE THE COMMERCIAL APPELLATE COURT
(PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT) AT ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R4(A) True copy of the order dated 02.05.2025
of the Hon ble Supreme Court in SLP (C)
Exhibit R4(B) True copy of the Daily Statuses dated
04.02.2025, 27.02.2025, and 004.03.2025
in C.A. No. 3 of 2025 before the Honble
Commercial Appellate Court, Ernakulam
(obtained from the E courts website)
Exhibit R4(C) True copy of the Case Details of C.A.
No. 3 of 2025 before the Hon ble
Commercial Appellate Court, Ernakulam
(obtained from the E-Courts website)
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE DEED OF PARTNERSHIP
DATED 16.12.2021
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION
CERTIFICATE DATED 18.12.2021
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE FINANCE SUPPORT
AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
13.11.2023
Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER GRANTED
BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN FAVOUR OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 07.04.2025
Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
CASE STATUS OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
FOR CAVEAT NO.5872/2025 DATED
21.04.2025
2025:KER:39396
Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE POSTER OF THE
MOVIE DATED 17.04.2025
Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTEMPT NOTICE DATED
23.04.2025 ISSUED TO RESPONDENTS
Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS DATED
23.04.2025
Exhibit P23 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DATED
19.12.2024 EXECUTED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
