The Mumbai City Civil Court has refused to grant ad-interim relief sought by a writer who alleged that filmmaker Aditya Dhar and others had copied his story, declining to stay the OTT release of Dhurandhar: The Revenge, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of similarity between the works.
The suit was filed by Santosh Kumar R.S., who claimed that the script and dialogues of “Dhurandhar: The Revenge” were substantially similar to his script, “Dsaheb.” Alleging unauthorised use of his work, the plaintiff sought a declaration and injunction against filmmaker Aditya Dhar and other defendants, and moved an urgent application seeking the appointment of a Court Commissioner and a restraint on the film’s scheduled OTT release. He contended that he had previously communicated his script to the defendants and the alleged similarities between the two works had caused him substantial loss.
The defendants opposed the plea and argued that the plaintiff had failed to produce any comparative analysis demonstrating similarities between the scripts and dialogues. The defendants further contended that the film had already been released in December 2025 and that even its sequel had been released, making the request to halt the OTT release untenable at this stage.
The Court noted that while the plaintiff alleged copying of his story, he had not placed on record any material enabling a comparison between the rival works. It observed that no comparative statement had been produced to demonstrate similarities in the script or dialogues and that such claims required verification before any injunction could be granted.
The Court also noted the delay in approaching the Court. It recorded that the original film had been released in December 2025 and that the plaintiff had admittedly acquired knowledge of the alleged infringement by March 2026, yet instituted the suit only in May 2026.
The Court also took note of the defendants’ contention that the plaintiff had earlier approached the Karnataka High Court through a writ petition, which was dismissed with liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy before a competent forum. According to the Court, the plaintiff had failed to disclose this fact in the present proceedings, which prima facie suggested that he had not approached the Court with clean hands.
Another factor that influenced the Court’s decision was the plaintiff’s failure to implead the OTT platform despite seeking relief against the streaming release. The Court observed that no injunction affecting the OTT release could ordinarily be granted in the absence of the platform being made a party to the proceedings.
Holding that the balance of convenience did not lie in favour of the plaintiff, the Court observed that restraining the release at this stage would cause irreparable loss to the defendants, whereas the plaintiff, if successful in the suit, could be compensated through damages. The Court therefore concluded that no case for ad-interim relief had been made out.
Accordingly, the Court rejected the plaintiff’s prayer for ad-interim relief, allowing the OTT release to proceed.
