not have either approved or disapproved the judgment dated 10 June 2021 of Narula, J. A reading of para 10 of the order of the Division Bench, in fact, conveys the clear impression that the Division Bench was of the view that, with the release of the film, the goalpost had changed. It is obviously for this reason that the Division Bench, advisedly, did not deem it necessary to advert to the merits of an interlocutory order passed at the time when the film had not yet been released, its contents were unknown, and the entire discussion was still in quia timet territory. This position stands underscored in view of the specific reservation of liberty, in para 10 of the order of the Division Bench, with all parties to advance their respective stands – with no proscriptive, or even cautionary, caveat – before the learned Single Judge, i.e. before this Bench. Without having examined the merits of the appeal before it, the Division Bench could, quite obviously, not have bound this Bench by the observations and findings of Narula, J., which were subject matter of challenge before it. 14.8 There are, even otherwise, fundamental differences between the grievance of the plaintiff in the original plaint and in the amended plaint. The original plaint was predicated on a mere apprehension, with no film having been released till then. Quite obviously, therefore, no claim of defamation could have been raised by the plaintiff. The opening observations in para 43 of the judgment of Narula, J., to the effect that the suit was not predicated as a suit alleging tortious defamation, on which Mr. Lall placed emphasis, therefore, merely, state a truism. Indeed, as the film had not yet been Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAMLA CS(COMM) RAWAT Signing Date:12.07.2023 10:10:24 187/2021 Page 13 of 68