Case Note & Summary
The appellant, The Indian Performing Right Society Limited, filed a suit claiming damages for copyright infringement allegedly occurring at Kala Academy, Goa on 27 February 2012. The respondents were Kala Academy and Mr. Abhishek Soman. The learned Trial Judge rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) on the ground that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action. The appellant appealed to the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The appellant's counsel argued that the Trial Judge erroneously considered only paragraph 34 of the plaint and examined the truthfulness of the averments, which is not permissible under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the Trial Judge failed to consider the plaint as a whole and instead focused on the correctness of the averments in one paragraph. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & ors. vs. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express, AIR 2006 SC 1826, which held that for rejection under Order VII Rule 11, the court must look at the plaint averments and not the defense. The High Court set aside the impugned order and decree, allowed the appeal, and directed the Trial Court to decide the suit on its own merits, without being influenced by any observations made in the impugned order or the appellate judgment.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Cause of Action - The court must examine the plaint as a whole to determine if a cause of action is disclosed, and cannot reject the plaint by examining the truthfulness or otherwise of the averments made therein. The learned Trial Judge erred by only considering para 34 of the plaint and not the entire plaint. (Paras 3-5) B) Copyright Law - Infringement - Damages - The appellant claimed damages for alleged copyright infringement at Kala Academy, Goa on 27/02/2012. The plaint disclosed a cause of action based on such infringement, and the Trial Judge's rejection was set aside. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Trial Judge was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action, without considering the plaint as a whole and by examining the truthfulness of the averments.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order and decree dated 24/06/2016 are set aside. The suit is restored to the file of the Trial Court to be decided on its own merits, without being influenced by any observations made in the impugned order or this judgment. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- rejection of plaint
- cause of action
- copyright infringement
- plaint as a whole
