the only change in circumstance since the time of passing of the order dated 10 June 2021 of Narula, J. – could be said to have entitled the plaintiff to an injunction, which Narula, J. had refused. He submits that the answer to this question has, quite obviously, to be in the negative. Mr. Lall‘s contention is that, in the amended plaint, the plaintiff has not advanced any submission which could change the factual or legal position which obtained on 10 June 2021, when Narula, J. rendered his judgment and that, therefore, the plaintiff would not be treated as entitled to any injunction against streaming of the film. Mr. Lall has, in this context, specifically drawn attention to the observation, in para 43 of the judgment dated 10 June 2021 of Narula, J., to the effect that, if there was any change in circumstance after release of the film, the plaintiff had an adequate remedy of being compensated by award of damages, provided he proved, in trial, that celebrity/publicity rights were inheritable and exclusively enured to him. The Division Bench having lent its imprimatur to para 43 of the judgment of Narula, J., Mr. Lall‘s contention is that the issue had now necessarily to be relegated to trial. A plain reading of para 43 of the decision of Narula, J., in terms whereof, alone, the plaintiff had been permitted, by the Division Bench, to approach this Court, he submits, reveals that the only right that survived in the plaintiff, consequent to release of the film, was a right to claim damages and that the said right was dependent on the plaintiff establishing, during trial, firstly, that celebrity/publicity rights were heritable and, secondly, that these rights exclusively enured to him. There is, therefore, according to Mr. Lall, no question of any injunctive relief being granted to the plaintiff at this stage. Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAMLA CS(COMM) RAWAT Signing Date:12.07.2023 10:10:24 187/2021 Page 11 of 68