The plaintiffs (widow and son of late renowned cartoonist Narayan Debnath) filed Title Suit No.01 of 2026 before the District Judge at Alipore alleging copyright infringement by the appellant-publisher (Dev Sahitya Kutir Pvt Ltd) in respect of Debnath's literary and artistic works, claiming a 2012 agreement granted only two-year publishing rights after which unauthorized publication continued without adequate royalty.
They asserted inheritance via a 2020 Will (plaintiff no.1 as Executrix, plaintiff no.2 as legatee). The Trial Court granted ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the appellant from publishing/selling/distributing the works till February 9, 2026, just before a book fair.
The appellant appealed (FMAT 18 of 2026), contending lack of locus standi of plaintiffs absent probate under Section 213 Indian Succession Act 1925 (applicable in West Bengal).
Bar under Order IX Rule 9 CPC due to prior suit dismissal for default, suppression of facts, delay/laches defeating equity, balance of convenience against injunction causing huge losses, and non-compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 guidelines.
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, upholding the injunction, holding that even in Section 57/213 areas, an executor/legatee can protect/defend the estate pre-probate as "intermediate acts" validated retrospectively under Sections 211 and 227.
Copyright infringement cause of action is continuing/day-to-day, so no bar under Order IX Rule 9/limitation/delay applies, no material suppression occurred (copy of prior order annexed), and prima facie case/irreparable injury justified injunction at ad interim stage per settled precedents, though observations not conclusive at trial.
Law Point:
An executor or legatee under a Will of a Hindu in territories specified under Section 57 (including West Bengal) can maintain a suit to protect/defend the estate/prevent infringement pre-grant of probate, as such acts qualify as "intermediate acts" validated retrospectively upon probate grant under Sections 211 and 227 of Indian Succession Act 1925 (Paras 59–62).
In copyright infringement cases, the cause of action is continuing and arises de die in diem; thus, injunction is normally granted as a matter of course on prima facie case, delay/laches do not bar relief, and prior suit dismissal for default does not attract bar under Order IX Rule 9 CPC as the cause is not the "self-same" one (Paras 66–69)
At ad interim ex parte stage, the Court proceeds on plaint averments as sacrosanct without mini-trial; damages not necessarily adequate remedy in widespread copyright infringement; non-strict repetition of Shiv Kumar Chadha/Morgan Stanley guidelines does not vitiate reasoned order (Paras 70–83).
Case Title: Dev Sahitya Kutir Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Archana Debnath:22.01.2026: FMAT 18 of 2026: 2026:CHC-AS:96-DB: Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]
