Basing itself on these principles, the Court directly contrasted the play of the plaintiff and the film of the defendant. Although both pieces dealt with the subject of provincialism, that would not be enough to warrant a finding of infringement. There were several other themes contained in the film—like casteism and the dowry system—that were not present in the play. The treatment, situations, dialogues, structure, and presentation of the film were all considerably different from those of the play. The Court, after witnessing the film and listening to the play being read out in dramatic reading by the plaintiff himself, ruled that similarities were not substantial or material. The ordinary viewer would not find the film to be a copy. Though the script of the film may have been inspired by striking features of the play, it ventured into greater areas of content and contained some autonomous themes. The Court reminded that slight changes or coats of dissimilarity could not be employed as a device to hide copying, and such efforts ,if established, would constitute colourable imitation. Still, in the present case, both the trial court and the High Court had concluded that there was no such unfair appropriation. In view of the concurrent findings of fact and the evidence that the film materially differed from the play, the Supreme Court hesitated to intervene. So, the handling of the theme in the movie could not be held to constitute piracy or violation of the plaintiff’s copyright.