Dhurandhar news : A Mumbai civil court on Thursday refused to grant urgent relief to a writer who sought to stop the OTT release of film, ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ on allegations that its makers had copied his story and dialogues, holding that he had failed to establish a prima facie case of similarity and had not even made the streaming platform a party to the proceedings.Ad-hoc Judge Y M H Kharadi of the City Civil Court at Dindoshi, Goregaon, was hearing a notice of motion filed by writer Santosh Kumar R S in a civil suit seeking declaration and injunction against ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ director Aditya Dhar and seven others.The plaintiff had sought an immediate injunction against the ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ release on an OTT platform and the appointment of a court commissioner to examine the alleged similarities between the competing works.“The plaintiff has not made out the case to show the similarity of script and dialogues, and already the movie was released in December 2025, and the second part was also released, but today there is a domestic release on the OTT platform,” the court observed while rejecting the plea for ad-interim relief. A significant factor considered by the court was the plaintiff’s failure to disclose earlier litigation before the Karnataka High Court about film, Dhurandhar: The Revenge. (File image, enhanced using AI)Writer sought injunction against OTT releaseAccording to the suit, Kumar alleged that the defendants had copied his story for the film ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ and dialogue and were commercially exploiting the work without his consent.Through counsel, he argued that substantial similarities existed between his script and the defendants’ film, ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ and that he had communicated his objections to them through email.The plaintiff contended that unless immediate orders were passed, he would suffer irreparable harm once the film, ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ became available on the streaming platform.He therefore sought an injunction restraining the OTT release of ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ and requested the appointment of a court commissioner to compare the rival scripts.Defendants pointed to delay, earlier releasesAppearing for some of the defendants, counsel strongly opposed the application, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to make out any case for urgent intervention.The defendants submitted that their script had been registered before the plaintiff’s work and highlighted that the film, ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ had already been released in December 2025.They further pointed out that a sequel had also been released, while the plaintiff approached the court only in May 2026 despite allegedly acquiring knowledge of the film, ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ in March 2026.Also Read | Karnataka High Court refuses to stall ‘Dhurandhar 2’ screening over plagiarism claimsAccording to the defence, the plaintiff had not produced any comparative material demonstrating similarities between the two scripts or dialogues.They also argued that the OTT platform, against which the plaintiff effectively sought relief, had not been impleaded as a party to the suit.Court notes non-disclosure of Karnataka High Court proceedingsA significant factor considered by the court was the plaintiff’s failure to disclose earlier litigation before the Karnataka High Court.The defendants produced documents showing that the plaintiff had previously filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru.While the high court had disposed of the petition, it had granted liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy before a competent forum.Story continues below this adThe Mumbai court observed that the plaintiff had not disclosed this fact while instituting the present proceedings.“That fact was not disclosed by the plaintiff, that will prima facie shown that he has not come with clean hand,” the judge noted.No comparative analysis placed before courtThe court found that despite making serious allegations of copying, the plaintiff had not produced material capable of establishing a prima facie case.Judge Kharadi noted that no comparative statement had been placed on record to demonstrate similarities between the scripts and dialogues.Story continues below this adSuch allegations, the court observed, would require proper scrutiny and verification before any drastic interim orders could be passed.The court also referred to documents relied upon by the plaintiff, which prima facie indicated that the original story had earlier been shared with others, along with a communication stating that it should not be used without a formal contract.OTT platform not impleadedThe court further held that the plaintiff’s plea suffered from a significant procedural defect.While seeking orders affecting the OTT release, the plaintiff had not made the streaming platform a party to the proceedings.Story continues below this adThe court observed that such relief could not ordinarily be granted in the absence of the concerned platform being before the court.Balance of convenience favoured defendantsRefusing to grant ad-interim relief, the court held that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the defendants.The judge observed that stopping the release at this stage could cause substantial prejudice to the defendants, whereas the plaintiff would still have the option of seeking monetary compensation if he ultimately succeeded in the suit.“If the plaintiff is succeeded in the suit, he can claim compensation, hence no irreparable loss would be caused to him,” the court observed.Story continues below this adHolding that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience did not favour him, and that no irreparable injury had been demonstrated, the court rejected the application for ad-interim relief.It allowed the OTT release of the film, ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ to proceed while the copyright dispute remains pending.Legal teamDhar was represented by DSK Legal team comprising advocates Parag Khandhar, Chandrima Mitra, Tapan Radkar and Zara Dhanbhoora along with advocate Chirag Mody.Advocate V K Dubey appeared for Kumar.(With inputs from Aparajita Prasad. She is an intern with The Indian Express)