14.1 I may now advert to the aspect to which I had eluded earlier, viz, whether the judgment dated 10 June 2021, of Narula, J., is required to be borne in mind while deciding the present application IA 10551/2021 and, more particularly, whether the findings returned in the said judgment dated 10 June 2021 would be binding on me and were not open to revisitation. 14.2 Mr. Chander Lall, learned Senior Counsel for Defendant 3, has no doubt about the legal position in this regard. Indeed, he rose while the submissions of Mr. Varun Singh, learned Counsel for the plaintiff were midstream, submitting, with some chagrin (even while retaining his characteristic savoir faire), that Mr. Singh was arguing issues which had been laid to rest by the judgment of Narula, J., and were no longer open to reconsideration. To bring home his point, Mr. Lall emphasizes para 8 of the order dated 26 July 2021 of the Division Bench, which allowed the plaintiff to press his claims in terms of para 43 of the judgment dated 10 June 2021 of Narula, J. The findings of Narula, J., in the judgment dated 10 June 2021, which precede para 43 of the said judgment, therefore, according to him, cannot be now reagitated or re-examined by this Bench. This Bench has to limit its cogitative excursions to para 43 of the judgment dated 10 June 2021, and cannot travel outside the peripheries thereof. 14.3 Mr. Lall, in fact, specifically contended that all that this Bench was required to do, as per the order dated 26 July 2021 of the Division Bench, was to examine whether the release of the film – which was Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAMLA CS(COMM) RAWAT Signing Date:12.07.2023 10:10:24 187/2021 Page 10 of 68