Last month, the Pune Civil Court ordered an interim stay on further publication and sale of the book, and the seizure of all unsold copies. The injunction follows a civil suit filed by Kondke's co-star and actress Usha Chavan, who claims she has been defamed due to the contents/passages in the book. Chavan has sought Rs 25 crore as damages from Anita Padhye, the book's narrator, and Ashok Kothawale, publisher, Majestic Prakashan, Mumbai. The Shahir Dada Kondke Pratishthan, a charitable trust, has also been named as a respondent.

Chavan claims the book was hastily published without the permission of the individuals/trust which hold the right over Kondke's property. Chavan also claims that Padhye and Majestic Prakashan sold the book by advertising it as a first-hand autobiography of the late actor. Shesaid that Kondke's will does not mention any permission given to Padhye to write the book and that the book is part of a conspiracy to malign her and compel her to resign from the Shahir Dada Kondke charitable trust.

Chavan has also alleged that Padhye had `put words in the late Kondke's mouth', saying that passages in which Kondke claims an to have had an emotional affair with Chavan are imaginary, and that the `Kondke-Chavan' marriage never happened. Padhye now plans to move the Bombay High Court.

``Anita Padhye has simply narrated incidents as told to her by the late actor, while Padhye interviewed him extensively over six months. Unfortunately, the actor died before the publication of the book, but audio cassettes of the interviews, which are in Padhye's possession, will be produced in the trial court,'' says her counsel Amit Date.

Interestingly, Chavan paid court fees of Rs 75,000 after filing the civil suit. She earlier claimed that as per a recent Government of Maharashtra notification, womenlitigants are exempt from paying court fees. However, the respondent party filed an application stating that exemption was only in relation to cases of maintenance, property rights, violence and divorce.

However, Chavan's case, solely based on alleged defamation, did not fall in this category.