judgment dated 10 June 2021 supra of the learned Single Judge. At the same time, the Division Bench also clarified that it had not examined the matter on merits and reserved liberty with the parties to advance their respective stands before the Single Judge, while pressing their claims in the light of the film as released. 7. As such, the lis, in the present application, is between the plaintiff on the one hand and Defendants 1 to 4 on the other. For the sake of convenience, Defendants 1 to 4 would be referred to, hereinafter, collectively, as ―the defendants‖. 8. The scope and ambit of the order dated 26 July 2021 passed by the Division Bench, vis-à-vis the judgment dated 10 June 2021 supra of the learned Single Judge, forms part of the controversy before me which I would address by and by. 9. In view of the release of the film on the Lapalap platform, the plaintiff moved IA 13982/2021 under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, seeking to amend the plaint as earlier instituted. The said IA was allowed by this Court by order dated 30 May 2022. The prayer clause in the amended plaint read thus: ―That in view of the above stated facts and circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon‘ble Court may be pleased to:(i) Pass an order and decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants by themselves, their directors, principal officers, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, advertiser or anyone claiming through them from in any manner using plaintiff son‘s name/caricature/lifestyle or likeness in their forthcoming project/films in any manner whatsoever amounting to infringement of Copyright; Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAMLA CS(COMM) RAWAT Signing Date:12.07.2023 10:10:24 187/2021 Page 6 of 68