Ashutosh Dubey vs Netflix, Inc & Ors. on 5 May, 2020 Plaintiff. 29. The basic principle for grant of an ad interim injunction under order 39 rule 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure is to prevent an injury to the plaintiff or to restrain the defendant from committing inter alia injury of any kind to the plaintiff. 30. As noted above it is not the case of the plaintiff that the impugned dialogue in any manner refers to the plaintiff or causes any injury to the plaintiff. On the other hand, the case set up by the plaintiff is that the impugned statement is derogatory to the reputation of lawyers as a class to which the plaintiff belongs. 31. As noticed above, neither has the plaintiff pleaded not shown that the impugned dialogue in any manner refers to the plaintiff or refers to a definite group of individuals or lawyers out of the entire class of lawyers to which the plaintiff belongs. It is not even the case of the plaintiff that any person acquainted with the plaintiff has any reason to believe that there is any reference to the plaintiff by the impugned dialogue. 32. Plaintiff has not been able to show that there exists a prime facie case in favour of the plaintiff or that in case ad interim injunction is not granted plaintiff is liable to suffer any irreparable loss or injury. 33. The balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiff or in favour of grant of an ad interim injunction. 34. The application is accordingly dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 35. Copy of the judgment be uploaded on the website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email. MAY 05, 2020 HJ Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/170570619/ SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J 8