12. I may note, here, that there was some confusion regarding the exact nature of the film which was being streamed on the Lapalap platform and in respect of which the plaintiff was seeking an injunction. Mr. Varun Singh also sought to submit that, despite a proscription to that effect contained in the order dated 26 July 2021 of the Division Bench, the defendants had carried out changes in the film even after the passing of the said order. That eventuality, however, stands recognized, and addressed, in para 9 of the order dated 26 July 2021 of the Division Bench. In the said paragraph, the Division Bench has observed that, in the event Defendant 3 were to make changes in the film, as it existed on that date, i.e. on 26 July 2021, information in that regard would be given to the plaintiff who would, then, have liberty to move the Single Judge, i.e. this Bench. 13. As things stand today, learned Counsel for both sides are ad idem that there is one existing final print of the film which runs into 2 hours 30 minutes 33 seconds. A copy of the film has been provided to the Court on a pen drive. It is this print that has formed subject matter of argument before me. Mr. Varun Singh seeks an injunction against streaming of the said print – or any other film showcasing the life of SSR – on the Lapalap platform or elsewhere, whereas Mr. Lall contends that, by streaming the film, his clients have not infracted any right of the plaintiff, as would entitle the plaintiff to seek an injunction from this Court. 14. Extent to which the judgment dated 10 June 2021 of the learned Single Judge in IA 5697/2021 is required to be taken into account Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAMLA CS(COMM) RAWAT Signing Date:12.07.2023 10:10:24 187/2021 Page 9 of 68